PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LIBERATO ADONES AND DAVID ADONES, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

People versus Adones

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Liberato Adones and his son David Adones for the killing of Romeo Quioyo at a barangay benefit dance. The information charged murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, alleging conspiracy, treachery, and the use of an icepick. The case matters to a reviewee for three reasons: it is a clean illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses, it shows how conspiracy and treachery are established by the acts of the assailants themselves, and it demonstrates that an accused who admits the killing but pleads self-defense carries the burden of proving that defense. It also reminds us that a judgment is not void for failing to recite the facts at length where the decision narrates the substance of the testimony of both sides.

Procedural History

The accused were charged by information before the then Court of First Instance of Bukidnon, Branch One. After trial, that court found both Liberato Adones and David Adones guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. It sentenced each of them to reclusion perpetua, ordered them to indemnify the heirs of Romeo Quioyo jointly and severally in the amount of 12,000 pesos, and to pay the costs. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning several errors, all of which, except one questioning the form of the decision, centered on whether the trial court erred in weighing the evidence and assessing the credibility of the witnesses. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but increased the indemnity.

Facts

On the evening of January 20, 1979, the Kabataang Barangay of Dilapa, Quezon, Bukidnon, held a benefit dance at the barangay basketball court to raise funds for prizes in a basketball tournament. Romeo Quioyo attended with Basilio Abeto and Leonito Blancia. At about ten o'clock that evening, Romeo requested a piece of music. Thinking that the piece being played was the one he had requested, he danced to it. It turned out that the piece had been requested by Liberato Adones. Liberato confronted Romeo, who explained that he had thought the music was his own request, apologized, and offered to let Liberato dance to his requested piece once it was played. Liberato was not pacified. He stopped the music, and Romeo walked toward the table where the phonograph was placed.

Liberato followed Romeo, embraced him from behind, pinning his arms so that he could put up no defense, and shouted to his son, "stab, stab." David Adones responded, approached Romeo, and stabbed him with an icepick in the stomach near the umbilical cord. The incident happened so suddenly that many spectators did not notice it, and the chairman of the dance even announced over the microphone that there was nothing to be alarmed about. Later, Romeo's brother Benedicto told the chairman to stop the dance because Romeo had been stabbed. Romeo was brought to the Southern Bukidnon Hospital in Maramag, where he was treated by a physician, but he died before the operation on him was finished, at about 12:25 in the morning of January 21, 1979.

The following day, policemen apprehended the two accused at Kipolot, Kuari, Quezon, after they failed to stop and a warning shot was fired. David first said he had thrown the weapon at the basketball court, but when it was not found there, he revealed that he had thrown it into a ravine at Kipolot, where a policeman recovered the icepick and its scabbard. At trial, Liberato set up alibi and denial, claiming he was seated near the phonograph and had no part in the stabbing. David admitted killing Romeo but pleaded self-defense, claiming Romeo had drawn the icepick on him and that he wrested it away and stabbed Romeo in turn. The trial court rejected both defenses and convicted them.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in failing to state clearly and distinctly in its decision the facts on which its finding of guilt was based.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that Liberato Adones acted in concert with his son David Adones in the killing of Romeo Quioyo.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in relying on the demeanor of the defense witnesses and in giving more weight to positive testimony than to negative testimony.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in refusing to give credence to the defense evidence that only David Adones killed Romeo Quioyo in self-defense.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not acquitting Liberato Adones for non-participation and David Adones on the ground of complete self-defense.

Applicable Provisions

The information charged the crime under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and penalizes murder. The decision refers to it as the provision violated, and the qualifying circumstances alleged were treachery and the use of an icepick:

Contrary to and in violation of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Court also addressed the constitutional requirement on the form of decisions, which the appellants invoked against the trial court's judgment:

Every decision of a court of record shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based.

This provision bears on the first assigned error, because the Court had to decide whether the trial court's narration of the evidence satisfied the requirement.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court's decision substantially complied with the constitutional requirement. Quoting with approval the argument of the Solicitor General, the Court adopted the rule that where a decision narrates the substance of the testimony of both the prosecution witnesses and the witnesses for the defense, and thereafter declares that the defense has not been established, the pronouncement amounts to an acceptance of the facts narrated by the prosecution witnesses, facts already detailed in the same decision. Hence, it could not be said that the decision contained no statement of the facts proved.

On the second issue, the Court found that Liberato Adones acted in concert with his son. Leonito Blancia recounted how Liberato embraced the deceased from behind, pinning his arms and rendering him incapable of any defense, and then ordered his son David to stab him. Basilio Abeto, standing only about two meters away, corroborated this account. The dance hall was well lighted with two petromax lamps, so the eyewitnesses could not have been mistaken as to identity. The Court held that the sudden and unexpected stabbing of Romeo while he was being held insured the killing without any risk to the assailants, which is the essence of treachery. Liberato's alibi could not prevail over his positive identification as a direct participant.

On the third issue, the Court applied the well-settled rule that the findings of fact of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded the highest respect by the appellate court, in view of its privilege of examining the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify. The Court also held that the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the eyewitnesses did not discredit them. Blancia's incoherent answers were shown to result from misunderstanding the questions, and he later identified the assailants and narrated the stabbing. Abeto's variance as to which request for music started the trouble was not decisive, because what mattered was his actual presence at the crime scene, which was corroborated. The Court even observed that such a discrepancy showed the witnesses were not rehearsed. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were given more weight because they witnessed the criminal act, unlike the defense witnesses, who did not see the actual stabbing and who did not volunteer their version to the police until they were served summons.

On the fourth and fifth issues, the Court held that David Adones' plea of self-defense could not be credited. The burden rests upon the accused who admits having killed a person to establish all the facts necessary to prove the circumstances of self-defense, and he failed to do so. His version was inherently unbelievable: he admitted he did not know the deceased, yet he claimed Romeo addressed him as one taking sides with somebody. The physician who attended Romeo made no mention that he was drunk. Moreover, the accused attempted to flee and disposed of the icepick during the flight, conduct not in accord with that of innocent men. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the conviction of both accused.

Doctrine

First, the findings of fact of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded the highest respect by the appellate court, because the trial judge has the privilege of examining the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify. Second, alibi and denial cannot prevail over positive and unequivocal identification by disinterested eyewitnesses, especially where no motive to falsely charge the accused is shown. Third, conspiracy is established where the acts of the accused show a common design, as when a father pins the victim's arms and orders his son to stab him, and such concerted action, sudden and unexpected, constitutes treachery under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code because it insures the killing without risk to the assailants. Fourth, an accused who admits killing a person but pleads self-defense bears the burden of proving all the facts necessary to establish that defense, and flight and the disposal of the weapon are circumstances that betray guilt, not innocence. Fifth, a decision of a court of record complies with the constitutional requirement to state the facts and the law where it narrates the substance of the testimony of both sides and declares that the defense has not been established, for that amounts to an acceptance of the facts narrated by the prosecution.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction in all respects, except that it increased the indemnity from 12,000 pesos to 30,000 pesos.

Remember This

The one line to memorize is that alibi and denial cannot prevail over positive identification by disinterested eyewitnesses, and that an accused who admits the killing must prove self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. Examiners use this case to test the deference given to the trial court's assessment of credibility, the elements of conspiracy and treachery, and the burden of proof in self-defense.