PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GREGORIO NARAJOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal interposed
by the accused Gregorio Narajos from the decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat, Branch XX, sentencing him to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the late Enrico Garzon the amount of P12,000.00,
and to pay the costs.

The information filed
against the accused alleged:

“The undersigned Acting Provincial Fiscal accuses Gregorio Narajos and Uldarico Prado of the crime of Murder, committed as follows:

“That on or about September 12, 1976, in the Municipality of Tacurong, Province of Sultan Kudarat,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping each other,
armed with a knife and with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with treachery and evident premeditation, attack,
assault, and stab with the use of the aforementioned instrument one Enrico Garzon, thereby inflicting
upon the latter a mortal stabbed wound, pene­trating his right lung, which
directly caused his death several days thereafter.

“CONTRARY TO LAW, particularly Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code with the aggravating circumstances of superior strength and nocturnity which facilitated the commission of the crime,
and that the crime was committed at the residence of the victim.”

The trial court found the
following facts and circumstances clearly and duly established:

xxx                xxx                   xxx

“x x x The families of the accused Gregorio Narajos
and the victim Enrico Garzon
are neighbors and residing in Malvar Street and Lapu-Lapu Street, Tacurong,
Sultan Kudarat, respectively on or about September
1976.  These Malvar
and Lapu-Lapu Streets run paral­lel to each other, as
shown in Exhibit ‘1’.  On August 31, 1976 there was a report to
the Police of Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat, that on August 30, 1976 there was a
tumultuous affray involving rela­tives of the accused Gregorio Narajos against a relative and helpers of the victim Enrico Garzon.  Some of them with Aida Narajos
wife of the accused Gregorio Narajos were injured in
this tumultuous affray.  This tumultuous
affray case was settled amicably by the parties with the agreement that
the medical or hospital bills shall be paid by those involved in the tumultuous
affray includ­ing the hospital expenses incurred by Aida Narajos
for the injuries she suffered while trying to pacify.  On September 12, 1976 while the victim Enrico Garzon, his wife Socorro Garzon and their driver Alejandro Gonzales were having a
conversation in the veranda of their house located at Lapu-Lapu
Street, Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat
the accused Uldarico Prado
arrived and asked the victim Enrico Garzon why was his brother-in-law the accused Gregorio Narajos be the one to pay the hospital bills.  The accused Gregorio Narajos
suddenly appeared and without saying a word to anyone immediately stabbed the
victim Enrico Garzon on the
right chest.  The victim Enrico Garzon held the por­tion
of the knife which was not embedded on his chest with his left hand to prevent
further penetration of the knife in his
body thereby sustaining also a wound on his left hand.  The victim Enrico Garzon tried to remove the hand of the accused Gregorio Narajos which held the knife by hitting the same with his
right hand making the handle of the knife separated from its blade.  The victim Enrico Garzon pulled the blade of the knife from his body with his
left hand and thereafter fell down from the rail­ings of the terrace in a
crawling position.  The accused Gregorio Narajos also fell to the ground and he tried to regain
possession of the blade of the knife. 
The victim Enrico Garzon
con­tinuously struck the ground with the blade of the knife to prevent or stop
the accused Gregorio Narajos to get near him but at
that time the accused Uldarico Prado
rode on him and strangled him with his two hands.  Alejandro Gonzales pulled away Uldarico Prado from the victim Enrico Garzon and boxed him.  The accused Gregorio Narajos
and Uldarico Prado ran
away.  Alejandro Gonzales brought the
victim Enrico Garzon to the
Tamondong-­Eugenio Hospital at Tacurong,
Sultan Kudarat for medical assistance and treat­ment.  The victim Enrico Garzon was treated for his injuries described as follows:

“Stab wound, deep penetrat­ing at right lungs, right side,
chest with concomittant pneumonia, massive and Hemothorax, wound, incised,
palm left.

“The stab wound was caused by a sharp bladed instrument.  The victim Enrico Garzon died in the hospital on September 16, 1976 after being treated by Dr.
Soledad Tamondong-Eugenio.” (pp. 99-101, Rollo)

The lower court rendered
its decision against Gregorio Narajos only, as Uldarico Prado remained at large.

Appellant Narajos raised the following
assignments of errors in this appeal:

I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING JUDGE VALENTINO G. TABLANG TO
RENDER THE DECISION INSTEAD OF JUDGE MACARIO C. CAMELLO WHO HEARD ALL THE
TESTIMONIES OF THE WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION
AND REJECT­ING OUTRIGHT THE DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS APPRECIATION AND EVALUATION OF THE
ENTIRE EVIDENCE OF RECORD.

IV

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The central issue raised by these assigned errors is whether or
not the trial court erred in determining the value and credibility of the
evidence presented.

First, the appellant contends that the trial court made a faulty
assessment of the evidence presented because the judge who rendered the
decision did not fully hear the case from its inception.

The change of judges was a result of the judiciary reorganization
which transferred jurisdiction over cases in that area from the Court of First
Instance of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat,
Branch IV to the Regional Trial Court of Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat, Branch
XX.  Thus, when the case was trans­ferred
to the latter court, its presiding judge heard only the rebuttal testimony of
Socorro Garzon and the appellant’s sur-rebuttal.

However, the contention is without merit.  A judge may validly render a decision although he has only partly heard the
testimony of witnesses.

As held in the case of Villanueva
v. Estenzo (64 SCRA 407):

“As early as Ortiz v. Aramburo,
et al case, (8 Phil. 98), We ruled that there is no provision of law which would
preclude a Judge of the Court of First Instance from deciding a case on the ba­sis
of the oral and documentary evidence presented before the first judge who re­signed
from the service without deciding the case, which oral evidence was taken by a
stenographer and was produced before the second judge.

xxx                xxx                   xxx

“This rule is rooted in practical con­siderations.  Sometimes it is an impossi­bility
for the judge who tried the case to be the same judicial officer to decide
it.  The judge who tried the case may
die, resign or retire from the bench before he could render judgment
thereon.  In that case, We find no legal impediment to his successor’s continuing
with the trial or rendering judgment on the basis of the evidence submitted if
the trial has been terminated.  It is
sufficient that in such circumstances the judge, in deciding the case, must
base it completely on the cold record before him, in the same manner as
appellate courts when they review the evidence of the case raised to them on
appeal.  x x x.”

The appellant points out
that the judge made mention of only one (1) documentary exhibit with
sub-markings of the defense when there were actually thirteen (13) exhibits.

We agree with the
Solicitor General’s observation when he said:

“We are in accord, however, with appellant on one point, i.e.,
that Judge Tablang seems to have erred in declaring
in the Preliminary Statement of his Decision that the defense sub­mitted only
Exhibits “1” to “1-M” (p. 4, Decision).  The records
show that there were thirteen (13) documents presented by the defense, namely
Exhibits “1” to “13”, with sub-markings (‘Written Offer of
Evidence’, p. 599, Records), all of which were admitted in evidence by Judge Tablang in his Order dated October 12, 1983 (p. 655,
Records).  This error is apparently due
to mere inadvertence, because in his subsequent
discussion of the evidence for the defense, Judge Tablang
made reference to Exhibit “13” (medical certificate dated September 20, 1976 issued in
appellant’s favor).” (pp. 10-11, Appellee’s
Brief)

As a matter of fact, the
thirteen (13) exhibits were submitted to Judge Tablang
and not to his predecessor.

Second, the appellant
contends that the trial court erred in the appreciation of the evidence
presented because the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were fraught
with inconsistencies and contradictory with the other testimonies.

There were alleged
testimonial inconsistencies regarding the mortal wound inflicted on the victim.

The appellant alleges
that the testimony of Dr. Soledad Tamondong-Eugenio
that there was no exit wound at the back of the victim contradicted the
testimonies of Socorro Garzon and Alejandro Gonzales
that the whole length (12 inches) of the murder weapon embedded itself in the
victim’s body.  Furthermore, Dr. Eugenio testified that the blade created a short horizontal
line wound while in Garzon and Gonzales’ testimonies
it could be gathered that the manner of infliction by the assailant would have
produced a vertical line-wound.

The prosecution
witnesses’ testimonies vis-a-vis Eugenio’s
testimony are not actually contradictory.

Eugenio’s testimony corroborates Garzon
and Gonzales’ testimonies that the appellant was not able to thrust the whole
length of the knife into the victim’s right chest because the victim held the unembedded portion of the blade with his left hand and then
with his right hand struck or twisted the appellant’s hand causing the handle
which was being held by appellant to be detached from the blade (tsn., Oct. 14, 1977, pp. 2, 4; April 24, 1978, pp. 5-6).

When these two witnesses
testified that the assail­ant swung the fatal weapon at the victim by
raising it above his head and bringing
it downwards, the wound created could well have been a horizontal line rather
than verti­cal, depending on the victim’s position.

The appellant also
pointed out that the small wound on the victim’s body could not have been
caused by the bolo exhibited as the murder weapon.

On the contrary, the
small wound corroborates the above-mentioned prosecution witnesses’ testimonies
that the victim held unto the unembedded portion of
the weapon.

We agree with the
Solicitor General that:

“There is nothing incredible about the declaration of Socorro Garzon and Alejandro Gonzales that after Enrico Garzon took possession of
the bladed weapon from appellant, Alejandro Gonzales got it from him and threw
it away while Uldarico Prado
and appellant were still fighting him (Enrico Garzon).  It must be
remembered that after pulling the blade of the knife from his body with his
left hand, the victim fell to the ground in a crawling position.  Appellant also fell to the ground and tried
to regain possession of the blade.  For a
while the victim managed to keep appellant from getting the blade by
continuously striking the ground with it but then accused Uldarico
Prado rode on him and strangled him with his two
hands (tsn., July 15, 1977, p. 5; Nov. 28, 1977, pp.
3-7; April 24, 1978, pp. 8-10).  Thus,
when Alejandro Gonzales had the chance, he grabbed the blade from the victim
and threw it away.  If he had not done
so, appellant could have retrieved it from the victim, considering that the
latter was getting weaker due to loss of blood which was spurting from his
chest wound, not to mention the fact that he was being strangled by Uldarico Prado.  Certainly, once in possession again of the
bladed weapon, appellant would have
used it immediately against the victim.

“Exhibit “13” (medical certificate issued on September 20, 1976 which shows
certain injuries suffered by appellant during the incident) and the testimonies
of Socorro Garzon and Alejandro Gonzales are not
incongruous.  Both witnesses did not rule
out the possibility that appellant was hit with the knife when the victim
repeatedly struck the ground with it to prevent appellant, who was then also in
a crouching position, from regaining possession thereof.  x x
x.” (tsn., Nov. 29, 1977, pp. 4 & 6; and Sept. 29, 1978, p. 5).

The appellant questions
the credibility of Garzon, wife of the deceased and
Gonzales, driver of the deceased by virtue of the fact that they were not able
to give their sworn statements to the police immediately.  The delay he alleges, gave them enough time to concoct their stories.

As held in the case of People
v. Canada, G. R. No. 63728, Sept.
15, 1986:

“When there is no showing of im­proper motive on the part of
witnesses for testifying against the accused, the fact that they are related to
the victim does not render their clear and positive testimony less worthy of
full faith and credit.  On the contrary,
their natural interest in serving the conviction of the guilty would deter them
from implicating persons other than the culprits, for otherwise, the latter would thereby gain immunity.  (People v. Radomes, 141 SCRA 548; People v. Jabequero, 125 SCRA 144; and People v. Alcantara, supra).

The flight of Uldarico Prado, a co-accused may be indicative of Prado’s guilt but such action cannot be taken to mean that
it is only Prado who is guilty and, therefore,
exculpates the appellant from liability.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that the indemnity to be paid is increased to THIRTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P30,000.00).

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.