G.R. No. 75368. August 11, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO CARINGAL Y EUGENIO @ “ROMEO CARINGAL”, REYNALDO MACUPING Y YAP @ “BEBOT”, JOHN DOE @ “NICANOR CORTEZ”, RICHARD DOE @ “RO…
FELICIANO, J.:
Romeo Caringal appeals from the
Decision of Branch 89 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City in Criminal Case No. Q-26832, convicting him of the
crime of murder.
Approximately half-an-hour past midnight
in the early morning of 4 January 1983,
Francisco Eugenio was assaulted and stabbed while he
was asleep inside a market stall, owned by one “Aling”
Liwayway, in the Galas public market in Quezon City. Minutes after the incident, he was taken to
the United Doctors
Medical Center,
but was later transferred to another medical facility due to his mother’s
inability to put up front a cash deposit of P1,500.00
required by the hospital. Francisco Eugenio was eventually taken to the Jose
Reyes Memorial Hospital,
where he expired a few hours later due to “hemorrhage, acute massive,
secondary to stab wound.”[1]
The Autopsy Report[2]
prepared by a Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) contained the following statement on the injuries of the deceased:
“Pallor, conjunctivae and integument, marked and generalized.
Wound, incised, thumb, left, posterior aspect, 3.0 cms.
Wound, stab, 2.3 cms., elliptical,
oriented almost horizontally, edges clean-cut, lateral extremity sharp, medial
extremity blunt; located at the anterior abdominal wall, lower quadrant, left,
7.0 cms. below level of
umbilicus, 2.5 cms. from
anterior median line; directed backward, downward and medially, penetrating
abdominal cavity, cutting the left common iliac artery with an approximate
depth of 10.0 cms.
Hemoperitoneum
– 500 cc.
Exploratory laparotomy
incision, sutured, 22.0 cms.
Surgical incision, just below the stab
wound, 2.5 cms.
Brain and other visceral
organs, pale.
Stomach – filled with rice and other
food particles.”
On the basis of two (2) separate sworn statements given to police
investigators later that same day by Cristina Eugenio
and Michael Eugenio, the mother and younger brother,
respectively, of the deceased, five (5) main suspects emerged, namely: Romeo Caringal
(appellant herein), Reynaldo Macuping, Nicanor Cortez, Rogelio Reyes and Melchor
Sabido. The
two (2) Eugenios, mother and son, alleged in their
statements that Francisco, while in the emergency room of the Jose Reyes
Memorial Hospital fighting for his life, had told both of them that he had been
able to recognize Romeo Caringal as the person who
stabbed him and the other four (4) named suspects (“Bebot,”
Melchor, Nicanor and “Ogie“) as Caringal’s
companions, who held him down as he was being stabbed.[3]
Seven months later, on 28
July 1983, Romeo Caringal and Reynaldo Macuping were apprehended and detained by the Quezon City police
authorities. The other three (3) named
suspects, upon the other hand, have to this day managed to elude arrest despite
the issuance of warrants therefor and continue to
remain at large.
On 29 July 1983,
a criminal Information[4]
(docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-26832) was filed with the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City charging the five (5) above-named
suspects with the murder of Francisco Eugenio,
committed in the following manner:
“That on or about the 4th day of January 1983, in Quezon City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together,
confederating with and mutually helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill,
qualified by evident premeditation and treachery, attack, assault and employ
personal violence upon FRANCISCO EUGENIO Y LLANES, by then and there stabbing
him on the body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal stab wounds
which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and
prejudice of the heirs of Francisco Eugenio Y Llanes in such other amount as may be awarded under the
provisions of the Civil Code.”
Romeo Caringal
and Reynaldo Macuping were both arraigned on 24 August 1984, at which time they
pleaded “not guilty” to the charge of murder.
At the trial, the prosecution presented as its principal
witnesses Adelina Villa, Cristina Eugenio,
Patrolman Antonio Ibañez and Dr. Bienvenido
Muñoz.
Prosecution witness Adelina
Villa, a housekeeper
and laundrywoman, testified that at around 12:30
in the morning of 4 January 1983,
she was at the Barangay Pharmacy in Galas, Quezon City, in search of
medication for her rheumatism, which at that moment was causing her some pain
and discomfort. She then suddenly became
aware of a commotion taking place some ten (10) meters away, in the market
stall of “Aling” Liwayway
in the Galas public market. Focusing her
attention in that direction, Adelina saw with her own
eyes defendant Caringal stabbing Francisco Eugenio with a kitchen knife while five (5) other persons,
whom she did not recognize, held down their victim. Adelina immediately
fled the area, horrified by what she had just witnessed. She “immediately after the
incident”[5]
told Cristina Eugenio of the stabbing, although she
admitted not having reported what she had seen to the police authorities
investigating the case.[6]
Prosecution witness Cristina Eugenio,
mother of the deceased, testified that she first learned that her son Francisco
had been stabbed from her brother-in-law, Marcelo Eugenio,
sometime around midnight of 4 January 1983. Together with her son, Michael, she left
immediately for the United Doctors
Medical Center
(where Francisco was taken initially) and later proceeded to the Jose
Reyes Memorial Hospital. Mrs. Eugenio
testified that while inside the emergency room of the latter hospital,
Francisco disclosed to her the identities of his assailant (i.e., defendant Caringal) and four (4) of the latter’s companions, hence
re-affirming the statement she had previously given to the investigating
authorities on the very day of the stabbing.
She further stated that just a few minutes prior to her son’s revelation
to her, a police investigator (i.e., defense witness Danilo
Aquino) had also spoken with Francisco, whom she
subsequently saw sign a document prepared by the policeman. Mrs. Eugenio could
not at first remember whether she too had signed the document. When shown a photocopy of said document at
the witness stand, however, she disowned the signature appearing thereon
purporting to be hers.[7]
For his part, prosecution witness Antonio Ibañez
testified that he was one of the policemen assigned to investigate the murder of Francisco Eugenio
and that it was he who took down the sworn statement of Michael Eugenio at the police station, on 4 January
1983.[8]
Finally, prosecution
witness Bienvenido Muñoz,
an NBI Medico-Legal Officer, testified that he had conducted the autopsy on the
corpse of Francisco Eugenio and had prepared the
autopsy report presented in evidence.
Dr. Muñoz identified an incised wound on the
palm and a stab wound in the stomach area of the deceased and stated that it
was the latter wound which caused Francisco’s death.[9]
The defense, upon the
other hand, presented in evidence the testimonies of defendant Romeo Caringal, Nieves Caringal and Patrolman
Danilo Aquino. Accused Reynaldo Macuping,
who likewise took the witness stand, denied any involvement in the murder of
Francisco Eugenio, claiming that he had no reason to
participate therein.[10]
Accused Romeo Caringal testified that at 12:30 in the morning of 4 January
1983, he was fast
asleep inside his family’s market stall inside the Galas public market,
together with his mother, sister and brother; and that it was only at six o’clock later that morning that he woke up, after
his mother had awakened him. He also
testified that he had had no previous “misunderstanding” with
Francisco Eugenio
which would have moved him to kill the latter.
He stated, further, that he had not met witness Adelina
Villa previously and that he knew of no reason why she should have testified against
him in this case.[11]
Defense witness Nieves
Caringal corroborated
the testimony of her son, Romeo Caringal. She testified that she roused Romeo from
sleep at around six o’clock in the morning of January 1983, in
order that he could assist her in arranging their goods
for sale, and that Romeo had been fast asleep inside their family’s market
stall at all relevant hours prior thereto.
When asked whether she had known of any “misunderstanding” between
her defendant son and the deceased prior to the killing, she replied that she
had not then been aware of any.
Concluding her testimony, Mrs. Caringal stated
that prior to her testimony in court, she did not file with the police
authorities any formal statement setting out her own version of
the case, even after her son had already been apprehended and detained.[12]
Defense witness Danilo Aquino testified that Francisco Eugenio,
when asked inside the emergency room of the Jose Reyes Memorial Hospital whether he had been able to recognize any of
his assailants, answered in the negative.
Francisco’s answer was reflected in a statement prepared on the spot by
Patrolman Aquino, who identified a photocopy thereof
on the witness stand. This witness also
testified that both the deceased and his mother, prosecution witness Cristina Eugenio, signed the disputed statement, at that same
occasion and in his presence.[13]
On 18
January 1985, the
Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision,[14] the dispositive
portion of which read:
“ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Acquitting accused
Reynaldo Macuping (Maluping)
y Yap alias “Bebot” of the crime of Murder charged in the
information with costs de officio. The said accused being detained his release
is immediately ordered unless he is held for another crime or for any other cause.
2. Convicting accused Romeo Caringal y Eugenio alias
“Romy Caringal”
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder charged in the information, as defined and penalized in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and in
accordance therewith there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances
which attended the commission of the offense, the said accused is sentenced to
suffer reclusion perpetua, with all the
accessory penalties provided for by law; to indemnify the Heirs of Francisco Eugenio y Llanes the amounts
of: P30,000.00, in compensatory damages;
P10,250.00, for hospitalization and burial expenses; P20,000.00, as moral
damages; and the sum of P1,500.00, monthly, for loss of the earning capacity of
the deceased, from the time of his death on January 4, 1983 until he shall have
reached the age of 65 years considering that he was 20 years old at the time of
his death, and to pay his proportionate costs.
Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 2, Section 1, Rule III of the
1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, the filing fees corresponding to the civil
liability awarded herein, which should be assessed by the Clerk of Court, shall
constitute a first lien on the said award and no payment by execution or
otherwise may be made to the
offended party without their first paying the amount of such filing fees to the
Clerk of Court.
As regards accused John Doe alias Nicanor
Cortes, Richard Doe alias Rogelio
Reyes, and Richard Doe alias Melchor Sabido, who are still at
large inspite of the issuance of warrants for their
arrest the records of this case, as to them, is ordered archived, subject to
further orders, and let alias warrants issue against them with a notation that they need not be returned until
they are actually arrested. The private
offended parties are ordered to inform this Court of the present whereabouts of
said three (3) accused so that they can be arrested as soon as possible.
Accused Romeo Caringal being detained,
and conformably with the practice in the Quezon City
Jail for all detention prisoners to agree in writing that they be governed by
the same rules regarding convicted prisoners, he is credited with the full
extent of the period under which he was under detention.
SO ORDERED.”
In his appeal Brief[15] now before this Court, defendant Caringal assigns the following errors:
“I
With due respect, the lower court gravely erred in its
interpretation and findings that the testimony of the prosecution’s biased and
tutored witness in the person of Adelina Villa was
given credence to the effect that the accused-appellant was the person who stabbed Francisco Eugenio.
II
With due respect, the lower court gravely erred in likewise giving
credence to the testimony of Cristina Eugenio whose
testimony is full of contradictions and grossly irreconcilable narration of
events during the trial.
III
With due respect, the lower court gravely erred in not giving credence to the testimonies of the
defense witnesses particularly that of Nieves Caringal
about [her] son’s innocence of the charge, as well as the defense presented
witness in the person of Romeo Caringal to the effect that he has no knowledge about the
stabbing of Francisco Eugenio.
IV
With due respect, the lower court gravely erred in disregarding the
testimony of Patrolman Danilo
Aquino in connection with this investigation on the
victim Francisco Eugenio about the stabbing incident
that led to the execution of the ante mortem statement of
Francisco Eugenio.
V
With due respect, the lower court gravely erred in completely
disregarding the ante mortem statement of victim Francisco Eugenio even though the original copy of the said ante
mortem statement was never presented by the prosecution during the
trial, otherwise, the accused-appellant will not be convicted of the crime
charged against him.”
In
effect, defendant Caringal would now urge this Court
to review the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of
the witnesses, both for the prosecution and the defense, and to reverse such
findings in his favor.
It is well-settled in
this jurisdiction that on the matter concerning credibility of witnesses, the
findings of the trial court, which had directly observed and was in the best
position to evaluate the demeanor of witnesses while on the witness stand, are
accorded the highest degree of respect.[16] These findings are generally upheld on
appeal, absent any showing of clear or palpable error on the part of the trial
judge in the evaluation and appreciation of the testimonies given in
open court. The Court finds no such
error to have here been committed by the trial judge; neither has the defense
been able to prove the commission of any, in this appeal.
The record shows that defendant Caringal’s
involvement in the murder of Francisco Eugenio had
been established, primarily, by prosecution witness Adelina
Villa, who testified in open court that she had personally witnessed the
stabbing of the deceased by defendant Caringal. In rebuttal of such testimony, however, the
defense contends that Adelina could not possibly have
been at the scene of the crime and witnessed the incident in question
because: (1) of her own admission, she
was at that particular moment suffering from rheumatism, which is a “crippling
and disabling disease;” and (2) it is “very unusual” that at
12:30 in the early morning of 4 January 1983, Adelina
would have been able to leave the household where she was performing laundry
services at the time without first obtaining the permission of the members of
that household, considering that, as stated by Adelina
on cross-examination, it was then only her first day to work in that
household. It is also argued that the
failure of this witness to report the incident to the police prior to the
institution of Criminal Case No. Q-26832, renders her
testimony at the trial a “pure fabrication” which “cannot
inspire confidence.”
We are not persuaded by these arguments. First, rheumatism, contrary to what the
defense suggests, does not necessarily render a person totally unable to move around or ambulate. It is common knowledge that the effects
rheumatism may have on the human body are determined, in large part, by the
degree or stage the disease is in. The
Court notes in this respect that the defense has neither alleged nor
demonstrated that Adelina’s rheumatism was in such an
advanced stage or of such a degree as would have effectively prevented her from
being at the Galas public market that fateful morning. Second, the failure of Adelina,
a middle-aged woman of 51 years, to obtain prior permission to leave the
household where she was doing laundry work does not, by itself and with nothing
more, mean that she could not have been or was not in fact at the scene of the
crime at the time of its commission. The
conclusion drawn by the defense in this regard is simply a non-sequitur. Such
conclusion also conveniently disregards the plausible and unrebutted
explanation given by the witness during cross-examination: Adelina explained
that the members of her then employer-household “know [her] already x x x that is why they are used to
[her] habit.”[17]
Third, the natural reluctance of many, if not most, witnesses to volunteer
information to the police authorities in
a criminal case and involve themselves in a criminal investigation is by
now a matter of judicial notice. Such
reluctance is not uncommon, especially where, as in the case at bar, the same
arises out of fear of reprisal from the perpetrators of the crime being investigated.[18] The fact that Adelina may have given her account of the incident only at
the trial below and not sooner, therefore, neither necessarily impairs her
credibility nor discredits her testimony.[19]
In further attempted
rebuttal of the eye-witness account of prosecution witness Adelina
Villa, however, defendant Caringal raises the defense
of alibi — i.e., that he was asleep inside the Caringal
family stall in the Galas public market at the time Francisco Eugenio was stabbed.
This alibi was corroborated on the witness stand by defense witness
Nieves Caringal, who testified that her defendant son
had been asleep inside their family’s market stall until six o’clock in the morning of 4 January
1983.
For the defense of alibi
to prosper, it is not enough that the accused allege that he was at a place
other than that where the criminal event transpired; he must in addition
prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the scene of
the crime at all relevant and crucial times.[20]
The Caringal family market stall where defendant
claimed he was sleeping, is situated only two (2)
meters away from the stall of “Aling” Liwayway where the stabbing incident took place. It was, in other words, not physically
impossible for defendant Caringal to have been at “Aling” Liwayway’s stall at the precise moment the murderous deed
was carried out. The proximity between
these two (2) market stalls indeed suggests that defendant Caringal
could very easily have left one stall for the other and then returned to the
former, in a matter of just a few seconds.
The testimony of Nieves Caringal corroborating
her defendant son’s alibi, upon the other hand, should be viewed at best with
caution, considering that alibi is so easy to fabricate, especially as
between parents and children, relatives, and even those not so related.[21]
Testimony such as that of Mrs. Caringal, the Court
has held in the past, “is undeniably tainted with bias for it springs from
the natural tendency of a mother to exculpate her son from criminal
liability.”[22]
Moreover, the Court notes that Mrs. Caringal, for
reasons not apparent from the record of this case, related her story and
corroborated defendant Caringal’s alibi only at the
trial below — i.e., on 12 October 1984
— and not any time sooner, despite the fact that her defendant son had been
identified to the police as a prime suspect in the killing of Francisco Eugenio as early as 4 January 1983 (the very day the
incident occurred), and notwithstanding defendant Caringal’s
subsequent arrest and incarceration on 28 July 1983. Such long and unexplained silence and
inaction on the part of Mrs. Caringal who, as mother
of the accused, would normally have been expected to come to the rescue and
defense of her own son immediately, upon his being
implicated in a criminal offense and jailed therefor,
cannot but cast substantial doubt upon the veracity of the testimony offered in evidence. In sum, the alibi
alleged by the defense is not credible and, hence, cannot prevail over the
direct and positive identification by eye-witness Adelina
Villa of defendant Caringal, as the principal
malefactor in the case at bar.[23]
Finally, the defense
asserts that the alleged “ante mortem statement” of Francisco Eugenio which had been narrated to and taken down by
defense witness Pat. Danilo Aquino
at the Jose Reyes Memorial Hospital minutes after the stabbing incident, sufficiently outweighs the sworn statement and
oral testimony of prosecution witness Cristina Eugenio. The deceased’s statement reads in full:
“Tanong: Sabihin mo ang iyong pangalan at mga bagay na
may kinalaman sa iyo?
Sagot: Francisco Eugenio y Llanes, 20, binata, butcher, tubo sa No. 304 de Sullo,
Bgy. San Isidro,
Q.C.
02 T: Anong dahilan at narito ka sa
ospital?
S: Sinaksak ako, habang natutulog.
03 T: Kilala mo ang sumaksak
sa iyo?
S: Hindi.
04 T: Kailan at saan ka sinaksak?
S: Kanina lang sa loob ng puesto
ni Aling Liwayway.
05 T: Anong dahilan at sinaksak ka?
S: Iwan ko, po.
06 T: Anong pinanaksak sa
iyo?
S: Hindi ko po alam.
07 T: Sino (ang) kasama mo nung saksakin ka?
S: Mga katulong ni
Aling Liwayway?
08 T: Sino
ang nakakita nang saksakin ka?
S: Walang
nakakita.
09 T: Ikamamatay mo ba ang sugat mo?
S: Hindi ko po alam.
10 T: Nakikilala mo ba ako?
S: Opo, investigador.
11 T: Makakalagda ka ba ng pangalan mo?
S: Opo.”[24]
The alleged “ante mortem
statement” quoted above differs in one very important detail from the
sworn statements made by Cristina and Michael Eugenio
to the investigating authorities as well as from Cristina’s oral testimony in
court: the Eugenios
declared that the deceased had informed them that he (the deceased) recognized
and identified his assailants; in the “ante mortem
statement,” the deceased is presented as having stated that he did not
know or recognize his assailant(s). If
one assumes that not only had the Eugenios spoken
truthfully but also that Pat. Danilo Aquino had accurately recorded the answer of the deceased victim, one may
speculate that the deceased was probably simply reluctant to
reveal to the police investigator what he, a few minutes later,
disclosed to his mother and brother. There is in fact nothing in the record that
would suggest that Cristina and Michael Eugenio had
falsified their sworn statements and oral testimony in court, and had
deliberately and falsely accused innocent persons. At the same time, the record is similarly
bare of any suggestion that Pat. Aquino had failed
honorably to perform his official duty and had fabricated a bogus statement of
the deceased. Neither the prosecution
nor the defense submitted any evidence proving or tending to prove the
commission of such a falsehood by either the Eugenios
or Pat. Aquino.
Most conservatively viewed, the sworn statements and
oral testimony of the Eugenios concerning the
identification by the deceased of his assailants on the one hand, and the
denial by the deceased recorded by Pat. Aquino, may be regarded as
offsetting and cancelling out each other. The trial court apparently reached the same
conclusion. In acquitting co-accused
Reynaldo Macuping, the court a quo
said:
“However, with regards
to the alibi of accused Reynaldo Macuping, this, to
the mind of this Court, deserves merit.
For, the evidence of the prosecution is totally bereft of any proof
to show that he participated in
the killing of the victim, the testimony of the victim’s mother, Cristina Llanes Eugenio, that accused
Reynaldo Macuping was one of those assailants, being
unworthy of credence, since this contradicts the victim’s statement to Pat. Aquino that he
did not know the person who stabbed him.
In fact, according to eye-witness Adelina
Villa she did not recognize the five (5) other persons who held the victim
while accused Romeo Caringal stabbed him twice.”[25]
We
must instantly note, however, that there remains the unrebutted
testimony of prosecution witness Adelina Villa, who
had personally witnessed the criminal acts attributed to the accused and who had positively identified accused Caringal as the person who had stabbed Francisco Eugenio. The trial
court found no reason to disbelieve such testimony and held that Adelina’s “capacity for truth [had] not [been] shown
otherwise by the defense.”[26] We agree.
The defense has indeed been unable successfully to discredit or
otherwise cast doubt upon the veracity and credibility of this witness, whose
singular testimony, both positive and credible, is sufficient to support a
finding of guilt in this case.[27]
It remains to note that
the oral statement of the deceased recorded by Pat. Aquino
that no one had seen the stabbing, was not in truth
inconsistent with Adelina Villa’s testimony. Francisco Eugenio
did not, of course, see or notice that Adelina had
witnessed the assault upon him. It may
be recalled that Francisco Eugenio was asleep when a
sharp blade was plunged into his abdomen; he awoke suddenly to find himself
wounded and bleeding and simply did not notice, and could not be expected to
have noticed that someone, some ten (10) meters away, had fortuitously observed
the stabbing.
Concluding, we believe that the guilt of defendant Romeo Caringal for the crime of murder has been proven beyond
reasonable doubt. The evidence shows
that treachery attended the murder of Francisco Eugenio,
as shown by the fact that the victim was stabbed while he was asleep, at a time
when he could not possibly and successfully have defended himself against his assailants.[28]
Absorbed in treachery are the additional circumstances of nocturnity
and superior strength, also present in the case at bar. Evident premeditation, however, has not been
sufficiently established by the prosecution and hence cannot be appreciated as
a separate aggravating circumstance. The
presence of one (1) aggravating and no mitigating circumstance having been
established, and in view of Article III,
Section 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is proper. The separate awards granted by the trial
court for moral and compensatory damages and for loss of earning capacity
should be, as they are hereby, deleted.
We consider the amount of P30,000.00 as civil
indemnity for the death of Francisco Eugenio to be
sufficient and proper under prevailing jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of Branch 89 of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City
in Criminal Case No. Q-26832, finding defendant-appellant Romeo Caringal guilty of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, is hereby AFFIRMED,
subject to the modifications stated herein.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.
[1]
RTC Records, pp. 99-100, Certificate of Post-Mortem
Examination.
[2]
Id., p. 108.
[3]
Id., pp. 94 and 102.
[4]
Id., pp. 1-2.
[5]
RTC Decision, p. 3; Rollo, p. 19.
[6]
Original TSN, pp. 28-35, 10 September
1986.
[7]
Id., pp. 6-17 and 25-26, 7 June 1984.
[8]
Id., pp. 2-6, 7 June 1984.
[9]
Id., pp. 19-24, 26 July 1984.
[10]
Id., pp. 45-47, 12 October 1984.
[11]
Id., pp. 47-51, 12 October 1984.
[12]
Id.,
pp. 40-45, 12 October 1984.
[13]
Id., pp. 53-58, 19 December 1984.
[14]
Id., pp. 140-148.
[15]
Rollo, pp. 33-53.
[16]
People v. Kintuan, 156 SCRA
195 [1987]; People v. Nulla, 153 SCRA 471
[1987]; People v. dela Cruz, 148 SCRA 582
[1987]; People v. Patog, 144 SCRA 429 [1986];
and People v. Patola, 141 SCRA 401 [1986].
[17]
Original TSN, p. 31, 10 September 1986.
[18]
People v. Ferrera, 151 SCRA 113 (1987). The pertinent portion of witness Adelina Villa’s testimony reads:
“Q: Madam witness, you mentioned that you saw the incident, why is it
that you did not report this matter to the police, you did not volunteer as
witness in the police station?
A: I was afraid.
COURT:
Afraid
of whom?
A: Afraid of the men.
COURT:
The men, who?
A: The person who stabbed the
son of Cristina.
Q: Why are you afraid of those
persons?
A: They
might threaten me.” (Original TSN, p. 34, 10
September 1986; underscoring supplied.)
[19]
People v. Andres, 155 SCRA 290, [1987]; People v.
Punzalan, 153 SCRA 1 [1987]; and People v. dela Cruz, 147 SCRA 359 [1987].
[20]
People v. Ramilo, 147 SCRA
102 [1987].
[21]
People v. Detuya, 154 SCRA
410 [1987]; People v. Pecato, 151 SCRA 14
[1987]; and People v. Cabanit, 139 SCRA 94
[1985].
[22]
See People v. Pecato, supra at
27 [1987]; and People v. Romero, 119 SCRA 234 at 242 [1982].
[23]
See People v. Masangkay, 155 SCRA 113 [1987];
People v. Ornoza, 151 SCRA 495 [1987]; and
People v. Dava, 149 SCRA 582 [1987].
[24]
RTC Records, pp. 133-134;
underscoring supplied.
[25]
RTC Decision, p. 6; Rollo, p. 22.
[26]
RTC Decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 21.
[27]
People v. Francia, 154 SCRA
495 [1987]; and People v. Obenque, 147 SCRA
488 [1987]. See also People v.
Dollantes, 151 SCRA 592 [1987]; and People v. Ladrera, 150 SCRA 113 [1987].
[28]
See People v. Parcon, 110 SCRA 425 (1981).