G.R. No. 60990. September 23, 1983
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSE GACHO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance
of Camarines Norte, Branch I finding the accused Jose
Gacho guilty of the crime of MURDER for the death of Magno Quijan and sentencing him
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to
suffer the accessory penalties provided by law, to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased Magno Quijan in
the sum of P12,000.00 and to pay one-third (1/3) of
the costs.
The information dated July
16, 1980 charged the accused-appellant and others as follows:
“That on January 15, 1980, at about 6:00 o’clock in the morning,
at sitio Putot, barangay Malangcao-Basud,
municipality of Labo, province of Camarines
Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, members of the New People’s Army, armed with armalite rifles and sidearms,
with evident premeditation and treachery, and conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping one another, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, fire and shoot one MAGNO QUIJAN, a barangay captain, thereby inflicting upon the latter
gunshot wounds on the different parts of his body which caused the
instantaneous death of said Magno Quijan.”
When arraigned, defendant-appellant entered a plea of not
guilty. Peter Doe and John Doe have
evaded arrest.
The evidence for the prosecution is summarized in the People’s
brief as follows:
“On January 13, 1980
at about 6:00 o’clock in the morning,
the Quijan family were
eating breakfast at their house in Potot, Malangcao Basud, Labo, Camarines Norte, when three
(3) armed men suddenly barged into their house brusquely asking the elderly man
if he was Magno Quijan, who
answered in the affirmative. Whereupon, the three (3) armed men ordered Quijan’s
wife and his two children to go downstairs (about 2 meters away from the dining
table) which they heeded.
Immediately thereafter, the man with a long gun fired several times upon
Magno Quijan, followed by
the other two (2) men with short guns – after which they fled. Magno Quijan died as a result of the multiple gunshot wounds he
sustained (pp. 3-7, tsn, Feb. 13, 1981).
“The foregoing incident prompted Wilnor
Quijan, fourteen-year old son of the victim to
go to Jose Panganiban, where his uncle resided, and
report the matter to the latter. From
there he proceeded to the municipal building (pp. 7-8, tsn,
Feb. 13, 1981).
xxx xxx xxx
“Upon investigation surroundÂing the circumstances of his
father’s death, Ronadin Quijan,
thirteen-year old son of the victim, could not specifically identify the
assailants. However, he informed the
investigating authorities that one of the culprits had a scar on his right
cheek and sported long hair. The armed
men wore no masks nor any device to conceal their
faces. (tsn, pp. 8 & 12, June 23, 1981).
“On April 10, 1981,
Ronadin Quijan was brought
to the PC Headquarters in Dogonan, Daet, Camarines Norte, where the
appellant was detained, a suspected NPA member.
Thereafter, the PC authorities brought him before the appellant,
together with six (6) other detainees and asked him if any of the said
detainees was his father’s assassin.
Seeing the scar on the appellant’s right cheek, Ronadin
Quijan immediately pointed to him as one of the
malefactors. Consequently, Quijan executed an affidavit to the effect that appellant
was one of his father’s aggressor. (pp. 10-11, tsn, June 23, 1981).
“Thus, the indictment of the appellant for the crime of murder for which he
was thereafter convicted.” (People’s Brief, pp.
3-5).
On January 13, 1980,
the body of the deceased was autopsied by Dr. Marcelito
B. Abas, Municipal Health Officer of Labo, Camarines Norte. Dr. Abas issued a
death certificate (Exhibit “A”) declaring the cause of the victim’s
death, as –
“Shock and hemorrhage due to multiple gunshot wounds at the
right shoulder, neck, and forearm left.”
Gacho, on the other hand, denied
knowing or participating in the killing of Magno Quijan, and interposed the defense of alibi. The defense eviÂdence is summarize
as follows:
“That on January 15, 1980, at about 6:00
o’clock a.m., at sitio
Putot, Bgy. Malangcao-Basud, Labo, C. Norte,
a certain Magno Quijan was
allegedly gunned down by three men while he was inside his house taking
breakfast with his two sons – Wilnor Quijan and Ronadin Quijan – all minors – and wife. (testimony of Wilnor Quijan). That when Magno Quijan was allegedly shot
they (Wilnor, Ronadin and
their mother) were ordered to go down.
Their father was shot upstairs of their house. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. Marcelito Abas, MHO, Labo, Camarines Norte, and
testified that the injuries he found on the person of Magno
Quijan are those which the prosecution marked as
Exhibits ‘B-2’, ‘B-3’, ‘B-4’ and ‘B-5’.
As a result of these injuries Magno Quijan died.
“The alleged crime was committed on January 15, 1980.
Yet, the affiÂdavits of the alleged two witnesses (Wilnor
Quijan and Ronadin Quijan, both children of deceased) were only taken down by
the Police Department of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, (not Labo, Camarines Norte, where crime was committed) on April 10,
1980, so much so that it was only on April 11, 1980, that a complaint for
Murder was filed against accused Jose Gacho. The
Information was filed by the Fiscal’s office on July 16, 1980.
“Accused-appellant Jose Gacho, on
January 15, 1980, at about 6:00 o’clock in the morning was in his house in Barangay Naboongan, Labo, Camarines Norte, far from
the place where the crime was committed.
He was sick, as he contracted his sickness as early as January 11, 1980. He was suffering from Flu and was
coughing. In fact because of his
sickness he instructed her to hire someone who could plow and plant their riceland. His wife
succeeded in hiring the services of Jaime Melgar. That Jaime Melgar
was the one that plowed and planted the riceland of
accused Jose Gacho.
That during all the time that Jaime Melgar was
doing the farm work Jose Gacho was inside his
house. In fact Bernabe
Sanchez testified that before 6:00 a.m.
of January 15, 1980, he
went to the house of Jose Gacho at Naboongan, Labo, Camarines Norte, to retrieve the scythe which was borrowed
from him by accused Jose Gacho. That he saw Jose Gacho
lying down inside his house, covered with blanket, and sick. Bernabe Sanchez
left the house of Gacho after 7:00 o’clock that morning of January 15, 1980. (Sanchez testimony).
“Jaime Melgar likewise testified
that in the early morning of January
15, 1980 (before 6:00 a.m.)
he was already in the riceland of Jose Gacho because his services was
hired by the wife of Jose Gacho to plow and plant
their riceland because Jose Gacho
was then sick. He started to work on the
riceland of Jose Gacho on January 14, 1980. On January
15, 1980, while working on the riceland,
Jaime Melgar always saw Jose Gacho
inside his house because the riceland he was
cultivating is only adjacent to the house of Jose Gacho. Accused did not have a chance to leave his
house that day of January 15, 1980,
because he was sick. In fact, the first
time that Jaime Melgar saw Jose Gacho
in the early morning of January 15,
1980, was when Jose Gacho opened his
window. That after his day’s work on January 15, 1980, he went home. It was then that he received the news that
someone was killed somewhere in Barangay Putot, Labo, Camarines
Norte, a distance of four (4) kilometers from the house of Jose Gacho. That, on January 16, 1980, he again returned to
the farm of Jose Gacho to continue working on the
said riceland.
(Direct testimony of Melgar).
Mely Gacho,
wife of accused Jose Gacho, testified that at about 6:00 o’clock in the morning of January 15, 1980, her husband
(accused) was inside their house at Barangay Naboongan, Labo, because he was
sick. He has been suffering from said
illÂness since January 11, 1980,
and it lasted till January 17, 1980. During these intervening
period her husband (Jose Gacho) never left
their conjugal abode because he was suffering from Flu and cough. He was merely treated by a ‘herbolario‘, who massaged him. He was not attended by a physician because in
Barangays ‘herbolario‘ is
the only accessible medicine man.
“Jose Gacho, the accused, testified
that he did not even know the victim because while the latter is from Barangay Malangcao-Basud the
former is from Barangay Putot,
distant barangays.
That on January 15, 1980,
he was sick. He was suffering from Flu
and cough. He could not leave his house
much more could he even do his farm work on his riceland. So, he instructed his wife to look for
someone who could plow and plant his riceland. His wife succeeded in hiring Jaime Melgar. He
contracted his sickness as early as January
11, 1980 and it lasted till January
17, 1980. This is so because
it is a Flu and cough. An illness which usually takes number of days. In short, he never left his house from January 11 to 17, 1980.
“It was only while detained at the PC headquarters, Dogongan, Daet, Camarines Norte, he noticed near the Chapel of the PC camp,
a man carrying a gun (brother of victim who is a CHDF and uncle of witnesses Wilnor Quijan and Ronadin Quijan). The CHDF (brother of victim) asked for his
(Jose Gacho) name and after he gave his name the
three left. It was only then that
accused was summoned to the PC investigating room where he was allegedly
identified by witnesses Wilson and Ronadin Quijan — after he (Jose Gacho)
had been asked by the CHDF (brother of victim) what his name is. It was a ‘tailored’ manipulation purposely
done to point out accused as the culprit.”
xxx xxx xxx
In its decision dated January
22, 1982, the trial court found the qualifying circumstance of
treachery to be present and convicted the accused for murder as follows:
“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Jose Gacho guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Murder, as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
without any modifying circumstance, and he is hereby sentenced to Reclusion
Perpetua, to suffer the accessory penalties
provided for by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Magno
Quijan in the amount of P12,000.00
and to pay one-third (1/3) of the costs.”
The accused-appellant raised the following assignments of errors
in his brief:
1.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT MISCONSTRUED THE
EVIDENCE AND THE LAW AND MISINTERPRETED FACTS OF SUBSTANCE WHEN IT RENDERED A
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED, JOSE GACHO, ON ITS BARE CONCLUSION
THAT THE ONLY TWO WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION, WHO ARE THE MINOR CHILDREN OF
VICTIM, ARE COMPETENT EYEWITNESSES, AND THE LOWER COURT SOLELY RELIED ON THEIR
TESTIMONIES RESULTING IN A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION.
2.
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF ACCUSED JOSE GACHO, AS
CORROBORATED BY THREE CREDIBLE WITNESSES.
3.
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN CONÂSIDERING THE DEFENSE OF ACCUSED AS A MERE ALIBI AND THEREFORE IS
ACCORDING TO THE LOWER COURT
A WEAK DEFENSE.
4.
AND, FINALLY, THE LOWER
COURT ERRED GRAVELY IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ON
THE MERE TESTIMONY OF TWO INTERESTED AND BIASED WITNESSES WHO ARE
THE CHILDREN OF THE VICTIM.
The appellant discussed the above assigned errors together in his
brief.
The defendant-appellant questions the credibility of eyewitnesses
Ronadin Quijan and Wilnor Quijan by pointing out
that they are the children of the deceased and that it is but natural that in
their desire to avenge the death of their father, they could easily fall prey
to their uncle’s desire to concoct evidence if only to point to someone as
responsible for the death of their father.
The uncle is a member of the Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF).
The defendant-appellant’s contention is untenÂable. It is an established doctrine that mere relaÂtionship
of prosecution witnesses to the victim does not make their testimony biased nor
render it utterly devoid of belief in the absence of an improper motive
actuating the witnesses to testify falsely against the accused. (People v. Puesca,
87 SCRA 130; People v. Abujuela, 92 SCRA
503; see also People v. Narciso Santos
y Marcilang, G.R. No.
L-60055, April 28, 1983).
In People v. Ciria (106 SCRA
381), we ruled that:
“As to the alleged suspicious character of Elizabeth’s
testimony because she is the daughter of the victim, it is to be noted that
appellant does not specifically point to any portion of her testimony which may
render it doubtful. Besides, We find no reason at all to reject the finding and
conclusion of the trial court regarding her credibility. In any event, suffice it to say that
relationship to the victim, standing by itself, does not prove that the said
witness is prejudiced and biased when, as in this case, said testimony is not
only clear and natural, but corroborated circumstantially by medical
findings. (People v. Estocada,
75 SCRA 295; People v. Roxas, 73 SCRA 583; People v. Pajenado, 69 SCRA 172; People v. Reyes, 69 SCRA 474; People
v. Padiernos, 69 SCRA 484; See also People v. Puesca, 87 SCRA 130, 144, citing People v. Miranda, 10 SCRA
385; People v. Asmamil, 13 SCRA 497 and People v. Libed, 14 SCRA 410.)”
We have carefully examined the records and we find no reason
either from the facts or from the appellant’s arguments why the prevailing
jurispruÂdence should not apply that mere relationship of the prosecution
witnesses to the victim does not necesÂsarily vitiate or impair their otherwise
credible, clear, and positive statements.
The record is bereft of any circumstance from which we can infer
that the testimonies of the Quijan children are mere
concoctions. There are sufficient facts on which they based their positive
identification of the defendant-appellant as one of the killers of their
father. Appellant Gacho
lives in a neighboring area and used to pass by their house. The Quijan house is
along the way when Jose Gacho goes to the poblacion from his own house. The murderous attack was perpetrated in their
very presence, thus enabling them to look at the faces of the culprits. As correctly observed by the Solicitor-General,
the appellant left deep impressions on their memories because of the following
circumstances:
xxx xxx xxx
“x x x First, it was the appellant who inquired from
their father whether he was Magno Quijan;
Second, the appellant was holding a long gun while the two other
attackers were holding shotguns; Third, the appellant fired the first
shot at their father; Fourth, the appellant had a distinguishing mark on
his face – a scar on the right temple, and he sported long hair.”
xxx xxx xxx
Appellant Gacho argues that there was
undue delay on Ronadin’s part to reveal the appellant’s
identity to the authorities despite his testimony that he knew him even before
the killing took place. This argument
has no merit. Ronadin
did not state that he knew the name of the defendant-appellant before or at the
time of the killing. All that he said
was he knew the appellant because the latter usually passed by their house and
had a distinguishing scar on his right cheek.
As observed by the People’s counsel “what Ronadin
must have meant by his statement was that he knew the appellant by face but not
by name.”
The record shows that the identification was positive. Wilnor testified
that he saw the appellant fire several times at the victim followed by the
other two men with short guns who did likewise after which all three fled. Wilnor Quijan stated:
“FISCAL PANOTES:
xxx xxx xxx
“Q What happened, if any, while you, your
parents and your brothers were eating that morning?
“A Three
(3) armed persons arrived.
“Q Do
you know the names of those persons?
“A No, Sir.
“Q About
the faces of these persons, could you recall if shown to you?
“A Yes, Sir.”
(TSN, February 13, 1981,
pp. 4-5)
xxx xxx xxx
“Q If
any of these three persons with arms are here in Court, please point at them?
“A That man. (Witness pointing to
accused Jose Gacho.)
“COURT:
About
the two persons?
“A It is only he
(referring to accused Jose Gacho) whom I
recognized. I can recognize the other
two if shown to me.”
(TSN, February 13, 1981,
p. 5)
xxx
xxx xxx
“Q At
present, do you know now the name of the person whom you identified here in
Court?
“A I came to know his name when he was brought
to Dogongan, Sir.
“Q What
is his name?
“A Jose Gacho.
“Q How
long have you known Jose Gacho?
“A I
know him even before because he used to pass-by our place.
“Q What
did these three persons do upon reaching your place?
“A They shot my
father.”
(TSN, February 13, 1981,
pp. 5-6)
“Q Who shot your father among the three?
“A All of them, Sir.
“Q Who shot your father first?
“A The one with long gun, Sir.”
(TSN, February 13, 1981, p. 6)
xxx xxx xxx
“FISCAL PANOTES:
“Q While
this person with arm, which you described as Armalite,
was shooting your father, what did the other companions doing?
“A All of them were standing at the door of our
house and shooting my father.
“Q How
many times, more or less, did the three (3) persons shoot your father?
“A Many times,
Sir.”
(TSN, February 13, 1981, p. 7)
“COURT:
“Q Are
you sure that the accused Jose Gacho is one of the
three armed men who shot your father?
“A Yes, Sir.
“Q Tell
us why are you so sure about it?
“A Because he has a scar here. (Witness pointing to his
left temple.)
“Q Aside
from that what else made you to remember him?
“A No other.”
(TSN, February 13, 1981,
p. 20)
Ronadin Quijan
also positively identified Jose Gacho as one of the
three men that barged into their house on January 15, 1980 and shot his father. He testified:
“FISCAL PANOTES:
xxx xxx xxx
“Q Did you come to know who were these
three men who shot your father?
“A The
only thing that I could remember is that man with a scar on the right cheek.
“Q If
that man with the scar on the right cheek is here in Court, will you point to
him?
“A He is here. (Witness pointing to the
accused Jose Gacho.)
“Q At
present, do you know the name of this person you pointed before this Court?
“A I know.
“Q What
is his name?
“A Jose Gacho.”
(TSN, June 23,1981, p. 3)
“FISCAL PANOTES:
“Q You
said you identified the accused Jose Gacho at Dogongan. Will you
please narrate before this Court the procedure taken by the PC when you were
required to identify the accused?
“A I was asked to identify the men there who
shot my father and after seeing the man with a scar on his right cheek, I was
told that he was Jose Gacho.
“Q How
many men were there in the place where you identified Jose Gacho?
“A I could not exactly recall because of the
time that passed, but it seems to be about 7.
Q In
other words, from among the seven you identified Jose Gacho
as one of the killers of your father?
“A Yes, sir.”
(TSN, June 23, 1981, pp.
10-11)
“COURT:
xxx xxx xxx
“Q About
the face of Jose Gacho was it covered?
“A When my father was shot, the face of Jose Gacho was not covered.?
(TSN, June 23, 1981, p.
12)
xxx xxx xxx
“COURT:
“Q Are
you very sure that the man with a scar on his right cheek who shot your father
to death is the same person who is now the accused before this Court?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q Why
are you now very sure?
“A Because when my father was shot, I
could recall his scar.
“Q You
cannot be mistaken?
“A No, sir.
“Q During
that occasion, how many times did you see the face of Jose Gacho?
“A Only once.
“Q
And how long did you look at his face?
“A While my father was being shot, I was
looking at him.”
(TSN, June 23, 1981, p.
13)
Defendant-appellant also invokes the maxim of falsus
in uno falsus in omnibus. He points out alleged contradictions in the
testimonies of Ronadin and Wilnor
Quijan, such as (1) the location of the scar of Jose Gacho (Is it on the left cheek or on the right cheek), and
(2) the kind of gun used by Jose Gacho (Is it an armalite or a shotgun?)
The alleged contradictions refer only to minor and collateral
matters that do not impair the credibility of eyewitnesses Ronadin
and Wilnor Quijan. More important than these inconsistencies, Ronadin and Wilnor affirmatively
testified to the unlawful killing of their father and positively identified the
defendant-appellant as one of the culprits that perpetrated the dastardly
act. Furthermore, possessed with
different capacities for observation, the witnesses cannot be expected to
recall with accuracy or uniformity matters connected to the main overt
act. (People v. Cabiling,
74 SCRA 285).
We apply the rule laid down in People v. Reyes (69 SCRA
476) and reiterated in People v. Balane (G.R.
Nos. L-48319-20, July 25, 1983),
that–
xxx xxx xxx
“x x x inconsistencies in minor and collateral matters with
respect to testimonies of two witnesses may signify that the two witnesses did
not deliberately pervert the truth in their narrations. The discordance in their testimonies on
collateral matters heightens their credibility and shows that their testimonies
were not coached nor rehearsed. Far from
being evidence of falsehood, they could justifiably be regarded as indices of
telling the truth.”
Furthermore, the questioned testimonies clearly show that the Quijan children, despite their minority, are capable of
perceiving and making known their perception.
The record is also bereft of any improper motive that would impel them
to falsely testify or implicate the defendant-appellant in such a serious crime
as the cold-blooded killing of their father.
Wilnor Quijan
testified to a possible motive for the killing –
“COURT:
“Q Do
you know the reason why your father was shot, if you know?
“A Yes,
Sir.
“Q Why?
“A Because
they are mad to his brothers who are members of the CHDF.
“Q Why are those three
persons mad at the brothers of your father?
“A I do not know, Your
Honor why they are mad at the brothers of my father.
“Q How
about your father, was he also a CHDF during his lifetime?
“A I could not recall, but what I know is that
they are mad with the brother of CHDF (sic).”
(TSN, February 13, 1981, p. 19)
Against the positive and categorical testimonies of the Quijan children, the defendant-appellant interposed a flat
denial of any participation in the commission of the crime. He introduced the defense of alibi. Appellant Gacho
claims that he was sick at the time the killing took place. To corroborate this defense, the
defendant-appellant presented his wife and two other persons testifying to the
same effect.
Alibi, being easily susceptible of concoction, is a very common
defense in criminal cases. We reiterate
the rule that to be accorded credence, it does snot suffice for the appellant to
merely prove that he was at some other place, but also, that the distance was
such as to preclude the possibility for him to be at the scene of the crime at
the time it was committed (People v. Romero, 119 SCRA 234). In the case at bar, the place where the
accused claimed to be at the time of the commission of the crime was only five
(5) kilometers from the place where the crime was committed.
Furthermore, alibi is a weak defense in the presence of a
positive identification. For the defense
of alibi to prosper, the evidence to support it must be clear and convincing (People
v. Chavez, 117 SCRA 221). The
trial court also found some contradictions in the testimonies of defense
witnesses. In addition to the manner in
which the witnesses testified, these inconsistencies helped lead the court to a
rejection of the defense alibi:
xxx xxx xxx
“Thirdly, the flimsiness of alibi as a
defense may be shown by the significant contradiction in the testimony of Jose Gacho (Cross Examination t.s.n.
page 13, September 2, 1981) who claims that Jaime Melgar
startÂed working on their ricefieled on January 13,
1980 against the claim of Jaime Melgar that he
started working only on January 14, 1980 (Direct Examination – t.s.n. page 3, August 17, 1981); the claim of Jose Gacho that he got sick from January 11, 1980 contrary to
the claim of Bernabe Sanchez that Jose Gacho told him, he got sick only ‘Yesterday’, meaning
January 14, 1980 (Direct Examination – t.s.n. page 3,
July 14, 1980).” x x x
There is no question that the crime committed by the
defendant-appellant was murder, qualified with treachery. The fatal injuries were inflicted suddenly
and unexpectedly with no opportunity on the part of the victim to defend himself. There was no
risk on the part of defendant-appellant.
All the malefactors were armed.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, and Relova, JJ., concur.