G.R. No. 72709. August 31, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALBERTO PADILLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
MEDIALDEA, J.:
The accused, Alberto Padilla, was charged with the crime of
robbery with homicide in Criminal Case No. 2375 before the Regional Trial
Court, Branch XXVII[1]
at Catbalogan, Samar. The information filed in the said case reads
as follows:
“That on or about the 16th day of May, 1983, at nighttime
which was purposely sought, in the Municipality of Daram,
Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a
bolo, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another with
Boyce Hamindang, Toto Mendido
and one alias ‘Moloc‘, who are still at large, with
deliberate intent to gain and by means of force and intimidation of persons,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously boarded the fishing
boat owned by one Rogelio Gososo and, therefrom, employing force
and intimidation against its crew members, took, stole and carried away with
them one wrist watch valued at Eight Hundred Pesos (P800.00) and cash money
amounting to Two Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P2,500.00) owned by said Rogelio Gososo, to the damage and prejudice of said owner in the
total value of Three Thousand Three Hundred Pesos (P3,300.00) Philippine
Currency;
“That on the same occasion, in the manner charged above and
pursuant to their conceived plan, the said accused, with treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one Esteban Labian, a crew member, with a bolo, with which the said
accused had conveniently provided themselves for the purpose, thereby inflicting
upon him ‘Stab wound 3 cm. at level of left nipple, 6 cm long penetrating the
thoracic cavity perforating the heart’, which wound directly caused his death.
“Contrary to law.” (pp. 5-6, Rollo)
Upon being arraigned, the accused entered
the plea of not guilty to the offense charged.
After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered its decision on September 25, 1985, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, and in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds
the accused ALBERTO PADILLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal by
direct participation of the consummated
crime of robbery with homicide, punishable under Article 294 (par. 1) of the
Revised Penal Code, and accordingly hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, with the accessories of the law; to indemnify
the heirs of Esteban Labian in the amount of TWELVE
THOUSAND PESOS (P12,000.00), and Rogelio Gososo in
the sum of THREE THOUSAND PESOS (P3,000.00); and to pay the costs.
“The bolo marked Exh. ‘A’ is hereby
confiscated in favor of the government.
“Atty. Fernando D. Fabrigaras is
hereby compensated in the amount of P500.00 for his services as counsel de
officio for the accused.
“SO ORDERED.” (p. 23, Rollo)
Not satisfied with the decision, the accused appealed.
The facts as found by the trial court are as follows:
On May 16, 1983, a group of sixteen fishermen working in a
fishing venture locally known as “likum-likum”
or “pangulong” owned by one Felipe Gososo of Brgy. Astorga, Daram, Samar, went to rest and spend the night in So.
Badiang, Brgy. Bachao of the same municipality. Although Felipe Gososo
himself was not there, his son Rogelio Gososo was
with the group. Among the group, Rogelio
Gososo, Paulino Quintas and Esteban Labian spent
the night in the group’s motorboat which had earlier been hauled up on the
beach. Some of the fishermen were either
in the banca where the nets where kept (“ligkupan“) or in the resthouse. The others were in the house of Brgy. Councilman Hernani Salubaga.
At around 9:00 p.m.,
Rogelio Gososo, Quintas and
Labian went to sleep in the motorboat. Gososo stayed on
the cover directly above the engine; Quintas, a little bit astern, and Labian, a little to the front of Gososo
at the middle of the motorboat. At about
11:00 p.m., Rogelio Gososo was awakened by two persons, one of whom was trying
to get something from his pocket while the other was pointing a small bolo
(“sipul“) at him. They took Gososo’s
Seiko 5 wrist watch worth P800.00 and his money in the amount of P2,200.00
which he kept inside his pocket.
Meanwhile, two other persons were near Esteban Labian. One of those two persons was accused Alberto
Padilla. Labian,
a 16 year old boy who had just awakened, tried to jump off the motorboat but
was held back by one of the two men.
When he was about to shout, Alberto Padilla stabbed Labian
with a “sipul” (a small bolo) about a foot
long. After Esteban Labian
had been stabbed, the four persons ran away and took with them the money and
the wrist watch. Shortly after, Rogelio Gososo accompanied by some men went by motorboat to Brgy. Calawan-an
to inform the authorities. They reported
the incident to Policeman Glicerio “Siyong” Gulane who at that
time, happened to be in Brgy. Cansaganay. Thereupon, Policeman Gulane,
together with three members of the Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF), Rogelio Gososo and the latter’s companions went to Badiang at around 1:00 a.m. of May 17, 1983 but did not
find the suspects who were identified by Rogelio Gososo
as Boyce Jamindang, a certain “Moloc“, Alberto Padilla who stabbed Labian and Toto Mendido. Upon being informed that the suspects were
from the Barangay proper of Bachao,
Policeman Gulane and company proceeded to the said
place. At about 2:00 a.m. they found Padilla lying on his back asleep with
a bloodstained bolo in his right hand.
They noted that Padilla’s right hand and the right side of his shirt and
long pants were stained with blood.
After one of the CHDF members removed the bloodstained bolo from
Padilla’s hand, Policeman Gulane awakened Padilla and
told the latter to sit down. Gulane asked
if he were responsible for the death of Esteban Labian. Padilla did not answer but merely stared at
the policeman. Again, Policeman Gulane asked the accused about the bloodstains and other matters
but the latter only stared at him.
Thereafter, the group brought Padilla to Daram
via Badiang in a motorboat and turned him over to
Cpl. Alfredo Costo and Pfc. Castillo.
The autopsy conducted on the victim yield the following findings:
“EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL PHYSICAL
EXAMINATION FINDINGS:
1. Presence of stab wound 3 cm. at level of
left nipple (sic) 6 cm. long penetrating the thoracic cavity ferforating (sic) the heart.
Cause of death: Cardiac tempomade secondary to stab wound.” (Records, p. 4)
The accused, on the other hand, denied having killed the
victim. He claimed that on that day, he
went on a picnic with some barriomates at the bend of
the shoreline around a kilometer from Brgy. Bachao; that he participated in the tuba drinking session
and got drunk; that at 6:00 p.m., he went home to take supper; that at about
the same time, he saw Toto Mendido, Boyce Jamindang and Moloc on their way
to a public dance in So. Badiang which is two
kilometers away from Brgy. Bachao;
that after his supper at about 8:00 p.m., the accused went to the barangay “tennis court” to watch over the motorboat of Jaime Jamindang
as he was the engineman of said
boat; that he fell asleep near the bench at the tennis court; that he did not
carry a bolo with him; that he recognized the bloodstained bolo to be that
owned by Toto Mendido as it was the same weapon used
by the latter in mending the fish nets of his uncle; that his lack of response
upon being awakened to the queries posed
by Policeman Gulane was due to shock as three rifles
were pointed at him; that in the
motorboat where he was brought by Gulane’s group, the
accused denied the charge against
him whereupon the CHDF struck him with the muzzle of their guns.
Defense witnesses, Rodrigo Labian, the
father of the victim and Paulino Sevilla,
Brgy. Captain of Bachao,
testified that the killer was Toto Mendido and that
they came to know the real assailant from information given by Policemen Gulane and Dianing, relatives,
rumors emanating from the place which all pointed to Mendido
as the killer and from one of the suspects, Moloc,
respectively.
The lower court rejected the alibi of the accused as weak and the
testimonies of his defense witnesses as inadmissible as part of the res gestae and for being hearsay.
In this appeal, the accused-appellant assigned four errors
committed by the lower court, to wit:
“I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT ROGELIO GOSOSO WAS ABLE TO POSITIVELY IDENTIFY THE ACCUSED AS THE ONE WHO STABBED
TO DEATH ESTEBAN LABIAN.
“II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDIT AND PROBATIVE VALUE TO
THE TESTIMONY OF RODRIGO LABIAN, THE FATHER OF ESTEBAN LABIAN, THAT IT WAS NOT THE ACCUSED WHO STABBED HIS SON TO DEATH.
“III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF PEPITO
SEVILLA, THE BARANGAY CAPTAIN OF BARANGAY BACHAO, DARAM, SAMAR,
WHICH TESTIMONY WAS PART OF THE RES GESTAE.
“IV
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDIT AND PROBATIVE VALUE TO THE
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION THAT THE ACCUSED WAS THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
DEATH OF ESTEBAN LABIAN, BECAUSE HE WAS ALLEGEDLY FOUND IN THE TENNIS COURT
HOLDING A BOLO (EXHIBIT “A” FOR THE PROSECUTION AND EXHIBIT
“I” FOR THE DEFENSE), WHICH WAS STAINED WITH BLOOD AND THE RIGHT SIDE
OF HIS PANTS AND SHIRT WERE ALSO STAINED WITH BLOOD WHICH EVIDENCE IS AGAINST
THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THINGS AND AGAINST HUMAN NATURE AND HUMAN
EXPERIENCE” (Brief for the
Appellant, pp. 1-2; pp. 51-58, Rollo).
After a painstaking
review of the evidence on record, We reverse the judgment of conviction.
As a general rule, the
findings of the trial court are given utmost respect on appeal unless it has overlooked certain facts of substance and value, which if considered,
would affect the result of the case. Such
exception now comes to fore in the instant case.
A careful reading of the
judgment on appeal shows that the trial court relied heavily on the sole
testimony of prosecution witness, Rogelio Gososo, who
testified to the identity of the assailant.
The pertinent portion of Gososo’s testimony
runs as follows:
“ATTY. FABRIGARAS (counsel de oficio
for accused-appellant)
Q Now,
did you recognize those two persons, the one who frisked your pocket and the
other one allegedly pointing a bolo at
you?
A Yes,
sir, I am familiar with the faces and if ever they will be brought here in
court I could recognize them.
Q You
do not know the names of these two persons?
A Boyce
and Toto.
Q Boyce
the last name?
A Jamindang.
Q Now,
these two persons who were with Esteban Labian and
the one who stabbed, (sic) did
you recognize those two persons?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Who
were they?
A Alberto
Padilla and Toto Mendido.
COURT
Q How about the Toto who was with Boyce what was
his name or family name?
A Toto was with
Esteban Labian, the two persons who were with me were
Boyce Jamindang alias Molok.
Q Why did you recognize them, do you meant
(sic) to say that you know them before
the incident on May 16, 1983?
A I knew because they often go to the sea to
ask for fish.
Q These
four persons?
A Yes, sir.
ATTY. FABRIGARAS
Q Since when have you seen them go to the sea?
A Since the time we went on fishing at that place within two
months that we had been fishing.
Q Since it was
evening and there was no light inside the motorboat as you testified into (sic)
the records of the case, how did you
recognize these persons?
A The
four of them, two had flashlights.
Q Who
were the two who had the
flashlights?
A The one who was carrying a flashlight was
with Esteban Labian while the other who has a
flashlight was also with me.
COURT
Q Who was carrying the flashlight because you
know the four?
A The one who was carrying the flashlight was
one alias Molok.
Q Who else?
A And the other one was Toto.
Q Do you mean to say that without the
flashlight you could not recognize persons at that time?
A I was able to recognize them because
whenever they focused the beam of the flashlight on my body it reflects (sic) over their faces.
Q I
will repeat the question of the court.
Without that flashlight you would not recognized those four culprits, is
that right?
A I
still could recognize them because that evening it was a starry night.
Q Yes,
it was a starry night, let’s admit that it was a starry night but you were
under the canvass, (sic) is it
not?
A Yes,
sir.
ATTY. FABRIGARAS
Q So
even if it was a starry night you could
not recognize these four persons without any light such as the flashlight, it
that right?
FISCAL COBRIROS
Answered already by
this witness, Your Honor.
COURT
Witness may answer.
A The
more that I recognized them because it was a starry night and they also had a
flashlight.
Q Now, was the light of the flashlight
not focused to your eyes to blind you?
A No, sir, it was only focused to the
parts of my body.
Q How
many times was that flashlight focused towards your body?
A I
was not able to count.
Q So
it was many times?
A Yes,
sir, not just twice.
Q Who
focused that flashlight towards you, who was that?
A It
was Molok.
Q That culprit who was pointing the bolo to you?
A Yes,
sir.
Q That light was focused towards you when you were facing them, facing Molok?
A Yes,
sir, I was facing Molok.
Q And
you were facing towards the astern and Molok was
facing towards the prow?
A I
was facing them at that time when they were near the outriggers.” (TSN of
April 6, 1984, pp. 38-40)
The
aforequoted testimony, to Our mind, engenders nagging
doubts rather than certainty, of the appellant’s identity as the real perpetrator of the crime.
It must be noted that except for the distant light of the stars, the
place where Gososo and company slept was dark. The record is silent as to the color
of Gososo’s outfit which could have indicated whether
or not the same reflected light. In this
situation, human experience attests that the beam of a flashlight focused at a
non-reflective object like parts of a person’s body does not bounce back to
illuminate the face of the flashlight holder.
Further, the starlight could not have been much of an aid to Gososo considering that he was then under the canvas
roofing of the unlighted motorboat.
Since there were two
eyewitnesses to the crime, We find it peculiar that the other eyewitness, Paulino Quintos, was not used by
the prosecution to support the testimony of Gososo. On their part, the robbers, as they are wont
to do, would take pains to avoid recognition.
Precisely, they sought the cover of darkness to assure success of their
evil design. Under the circumstances,
there are serious misgivings as to the
identification of appellant as Labian’s
assailant. Gososo’s
testimony has failed to pass the test of positiveness
and reliability necessary for conviction.
In case of reasonable doubt, the same must be construed in favor of the
accused who is presumed innocent under the law until otherwise proven.
Appellant interposed an
alibi on that fateful night. He
claimed that he attended a picnic and joined a group drinking tuba; that after
he got drunk, he went to eat his supper;
and that thereafter, he went to the tennis court to watch the boat of Jaime Jamindang and in the process, fell asleep. He disclaimed participation in the crime and
ownership of the bloodstained bolo.
Alibi is generally considered a weak defense. However, it assumes importance where evidence
for the prosecution is weak and betrays concreteness on question of whether or
not the accused committed the crime charged (People v. Delmendo,
L-32146, November 23, 1981; 109 SCRA 350).
We have also ruled that although alibi is easily fabricated, it is not
always false and without merit and when coupled with the improbabilities and
uncertainties of the prosecution evidence, the defense of alibi deserves merit
(People v. Castelo, L-48070, December 26, 1984; 133
SCRA 667). The tennis court where
appellant slept is near the seashore.
During the day and even at night, people pass through the tennis court
using the stairs at its end which leads to the sea where pump boats and other
motorboats dock and where one passes to go to the poblacion
(TSN, July 16, 1985, p. 47). Defense
witness Pepito Sevilla, Barangay Captain of Brgy. Bachao since 1972, corroborated appellant’s claim that on
that night of May 16, 1983,
the latter was drunk and fell asleep on
the tennis court. Sevilla testified,
thus:
.“ATTY. FABRIGARAS
Q In
the evening of May 16, 1983
where were you?
A I
was also in our barangay.
Q And
do you know where this accused Alberto Padilla was in the evening of May 16, 1983?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Where
was he?
A He fell asleep in our tennis court
near the seashore.
Q Do
you know why he fell asleep in the tennis court during that evening?
A Because
he was drunk.
Q Why was he in that tennis court, do
you know?
A Because
he was watching over our motorboat, the motorboat he used in fishing.
Q Who
is the owner of that motorboat?
A Jaime Jamindang.
Q Now,
in what part of the tennis court
was the accused Alberto Padilla sleeping?
A He fell asleep on the edge of the cemented bench near the stairs leading to the banca
where he was watching over.
Q This tennis court, how far is this to
the edge of the seashore?
A At
the end of the tennis court is a stairs leading to the sea waters (sic).
Q Now, why do you know that Alberto
Padilla was sleeping in that tennis
court?
A Because
we used to stand by every evening in that place.” (TSN, July 16, 1985, pp. 46-47)
It
cannot be gainsaid that a drunk
sleeps like a log and becomes, as it were, dead to the world. Considering that the tennis court is accessible
to anyone twenty-four hours a
day, it is possible that the true assailant could have placed the fatal weapon
in appellant’s hand and wiped the blood on appellant’s shirt and pants. This is not unlikely to happen as the records
have shown that appellant hardly stirred when the bloodied bolo was taken off from
his right hand by one of the CHDF members in the company of Policeman Gulane (TSN, August 30, 1984, p. 36). Likewise, We find it contrary to human
behavior for appellant, after having killed another human being, would just
nonchalantly sleep off his gruesome act without as much as hiding the weapon
used and his bloodstained clothes. The
records further disclose that appellant has no previous criminal record. Brgy. Captain Sevilla declared that the appellant has no record of abuses
in that place and is a well-behaved person (TSN, July 16, 1985, p. 50). Moreover, the records are bereft of any
laboratory test on the blood type of the blood found on the bolo, shirt and
pants of appellant. Thus, mere
bloodstains on the bolo, shirt and pants of appellant without any corresponding
evidence of the blood type matching that
of the victim will not be sufficient to convict the appellant (Cf. People v. Tolentino,
L-501303, November 24, 1986; 145 SCRA 597).
In regard to the
testimonies of Rodrigo Labian and Pepito
Sevilla which imputed the killing of the victim to
Toto Mendido, We hold that the trial court correctly
ruled that the same are inadmissible as part of the res gestae and for
being hearsay. Witnesses Labian and Sevilla did not have
actual knowledge of the incident because neither of them witnessed it. More importantly, the information they
received were not made under shock or stress or influence of a startling
occurrence which had taken place or subsequent thereto. But, be that as it may, the rejected
testimonies do not diminish the appellant’s chances for acquittal. We have, time and again, emphasized that the
prosecution must prove the guilt of the
accused upon the strength of its own evidence rather than on the weakness of
the defense (People v. Castelo, supra).
The totality of the circumstances of this case points to the
innocence of the appellant. His guilt
has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Only upon proof beyond reasonable doubt (which requires moral certainty,
a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who
are to act upon it) may the presumption of innocence be overcome (People v.
Martinez, L-39402, September 24, 1986; 144 SCRA 303). The prosecution failed to come up with a
credible, persuasive and strong evidence for conviction. Consequently, appellant’s acquittal is in
order.
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment of the trial court dated September
25, 1985 is REVERSED and appellant Alberto Padilla is hereby ACQUITTED on reasonable
doubt. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Grino-Aquino, JJ., concur.
[1]
Presided over by Judge Sinforiano A. Monsanto.