PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANILO LAZO ALIAS “DANNY” AND BERTING ARELLANO Y SABALO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Lazo

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Danilo Lazo, also known as Danny, and Berting Arellano for the fatal shooting of Felipe Garcia and the wounding of Tony Arellano on the evening of October 13, 1979, in Abulug, Cagayan. The two accused were convicted by the trial court of the complex crime of murder with frustrated murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and they brought separate appeals to the Supreme Court. The case matters for the bar because it gathers in one decision several recurring examination points: the sufficiency of a single eyewitness, the weakness of alibi as a defense, the nature of the right to preliminary investigation and how it may be waived, and the treatment of a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.

Procedural History

After a preliminary examination before the municipal judge, two separate complaints were filed: one for murder with frustrated murder against both accused, and one for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition against Danilo Lazo alone. The firearm case was later dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. At their arraignment before the municipal judge, both accused entered a plea of not guilty and waived the second stage of the preliminary investigation. The information for murder with frustrated murder was filed in 1981, and at their arraignment before the Regional Trial Court, Branch Twelve, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, both pleaded not guilty.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered a judgment of conviction, finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder with frustrated murder, imposing reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to indemnify jointly and severally the widow of Felipe Garcia in the amount of twelve thousand pesos, plus costs. The two accused filed separate appeals to the Supreme Court, Danilo Lazo attacking the credibility of the eyewitness and the rejection of his alibi, and Berting Arellano raising both the denial of due process through an alleged lack of valid preliminary investigation and his own defense of alibi.

Facts

Between six thirty and eight o'clock in the evening of October 13, 1979, Felipe Garcia and several members of his household, including his wife Felicidad and their farmhand Tony Arellano, were taking supper in the kitchen on the ground floor of Felipe's house in Sitio Macugay, Barangay Abulug, Cagayan. The kitchen was lighted by three improvised kerosene lamps placed on the dining table. Tony sat on a bench directly facing the kitchen door, while Felipe sat with his back to it.

Suddenly the door opened. Tony, facing the door, immediately recognized Berting Arellano, whom he had known for about nine years, and about one meter behind him, Danilo Lazo, holding a carbine rifle. Without any preliminaries, Danilo fired two successive bursts at the occupants. The first shot hit the kitchen wall; the second fatally hit Felipe and then grazed Tony's left leg. Felipe shouted that he had been shot and fell to the floor. Tony carried the mortally wounded victim to the second floor, and Felipe was rushed to a hospital in nearby Ballesteros, where he died seven or eight hours after an emergency operation. The attending physician treated Tony for a bullet wound on the left leg that would incapacitate him or require medical attendance for nine days.

Only on the following morning did Tony reveal the identities of the assailants to the victim's widow at the hospital, and on that same day he reported the shooting to the police, who recovered two empty thirty caliber shells and two slugs from the kitchen, and a handkerchief embroidered with the name Danny about ten meters from the bamboo fence of the house. The widow testified that she did not see who shot her husband, but she spoke of possible motive: while Felipe was still a councilor, he had accidentally shot Domingo Lazo, the father of Danilo, and Felipe had intervened in a carabao theft case against his own brother and nephew, thwarting efforts at settlement. Two days after that case was dismissed, Felipe was fatally shot. For their part, both accused set up alibi: Danilo claimed he was at the clinic of a doctor in Ballesteros at the bedside of his ailing wife, and Berting claimed he was working as a farmhand in Santa Teresita, Cagayan.

Issues

• Whether or not the testimony of a single eyewitness, Tony Arellano, positive and credible, is sufficient to support the conviction of the accused.
• Whether or not the defenses of alibi raised by Danilo Lazo and Berting Arellano should be appreciated in their favor.
• Whether or not Berting Arellano was denied due process by the filing of the information against him despite the alleged absence of a valid preliminary investigation and representation by counsel.
• Whether or not the crime committed is the complex crime of murder with frustrated murder, and whether or not the penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, on the penalty for complex crimes, provides:

For the complex crimes, the penalty to be imposed upon the accused shall be for the most serious crime which is murder in the instant case, the same to be applied in its maximum period or death.

The Court applied this provision in holding that the single bullet which killed Felipe and wounded Tony produced a complex crime, and that the penalty for the most serious crime, murder, must be imposed in its maximum period, reduced to reclusion perpetua because capital punishment was then prohibited by the Constitution.

Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, on preliminary investigation, is the provision discussed in connection with Berting's claim, and the municipal judge's certification recited the waiver in these terms:

After arraignment the accused were informed and made to understand of their right to enter preliminary investigation under Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and avail themselves of the services of a counsel.

This recital bears on the case because it establishes that the accused were informed of their right to preliminary investigation and of their right to counsel, and that they chose to waive the second stage of the proceedings.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err in believing Tony's narration. Despite its seeming inconsistencies, it was a fairly accurate account that dovetailed with the postmortem report and the findings of the investigating officers. The Court laid down the rule that the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction, and it found no reason to deviate from the trial court's observation that Tony's testimony bore the earmarks of truth and sincerity, having been delivered spontaneously, naturally, and in a straightforward manner.

On the second issue, the Court seriously doubted Danilo's alibi. The distance between Ballesteros and Macugay could be negotiated in an hour, so there was no impossibility of access. There were no medical records or hospital receipts to substantiate his four day stay, only a medical certificate issued three weeks later, and the doctor admitted he kept no records of patients treated outside his regular office. Danilo's answers on cross examination were evasive and uncertain, and it struck the Court as strange that he brought his bleeding wife to a clinic fourteen kilometers away when there were nearby clinics and a physician uncle of his wife residing near his mother in law's house. Berting's alibi the Court found to be an obvious fabrication, because a farmer must first assure himself that farmhands are available before procuring rice seedlings, and his corroborating witness could not state with certainty that it was impossible for him to be in Macugay at the precise time of the murder, and showed her bias by treating him as a son. The Court held that the trial court did not err in giving more evidentiary value to the positive identification by Tony, since the crime scene was amply lighted, Tony was familiar with the accused as barriomates, and the defense failed to conclusively establish that he was ill motivated.

On the third issue, the Court held that the argument was devoid of merit. The records showed that Berting and Danilo were duly informed of their right to preliminary investigation and to counsel, but chose to forego the second stage. The Court stressed that the right of an accused to a preliminary investigation is a personal right and can be waived expressly or by implication. Even assuming there was no preliminary investigation, the right had been forfeited by their inaction and could no longer be invoked for the first time at the appellate level; the matter should have been raised before arraignment. Moreover, by filing a petition for bail without raising the alleged lack of preliminary investigation, the accused had waived whatever defect there was and are considered to have recognized the legality of their detention.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the crime committed is the complex crime of murder with frustrated murder, since the death of Felipe and the wounding of Tony were caused by a single bullet. The aggravating circumstances of treachery, nocturnity, and dwelling attended the commission of the crime. Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for a complex crime is that for the most serious crime, applied in its maximum period, but in view of the constitutional prohibition on capital punishment, reclusion perpetua was properly imposed on both accused in equal degrees, since they acted in concert. Conspiracy was evident from their coordinated movements: both armed with deadly weapons, Berting barged into the kitchen first, followed closely by Danilo, who opened fire.

Doctrine

• The testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction; the credibility of a witness is a matter best left to the trial court, whose findings the Supreme Court will not disturb absent a clear showing of error.
• Alibi is a weak defense and cannot prevail over positive identification where the accused was not shown to be so far away that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.
• The right to preliminary investigation is a personal right that may be waived expressly or by implication; it is forfeited if not raised before arraignment, and the filing of a petition for bail without raising the defect amounts to a waiver and a recognition of the legality of the detention.
• When a single act produces two or more grave or less grave felonies, the crime is complex under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, and the penalty for the most serious crime is imposed in its maximum period.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, with the sole modification that the indemnity to be paid jointly and severally by Danilo Lazo and Berting Arellano to the heirs of Felipe Garcia was increased to fifty thousand pesos, with costs against the accused appellants.

Remember This

The one line worth memorizing is that the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction, and that the right to preliminary investigation is a personal right waivable expressly or by implication. Examiners like to use this case on the sufficiency of a lone eyewitness, on alibi as a weak defense, and on the waiver of preliminary investigation by filing bail or by failing to raise the defect before arraignment.