ISIDRO MENDOZA, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DIVISION, RESPONDENT.

Mendoza versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is the case of Isidro Mendoza versus the Court of Appeals, a petition for review on certiorari brought to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals which had affirmed the conviction of Isidro Mendoza for the crime of homicide in the killing of Sofio Libranda. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one place the classic rules on the credibility of witnesses, the weight of an eyewitness account as against circumstantial defense evidence, the use of dying declarations and spontaneous statements, and the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. It also shows how the Supreme Court treats factual findings of the trial court and how it adjusts the civil indemnity in line with current jurisprudence.

Procedural History

Isidro Mendoza was charged with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Daet, Camarines Norte. Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty, and trial followed. The trial court rendered a judgment of conviction, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of 30,000 pesos plus 8,300 pesos as compensatory damages, and to pay the costs. Mendoza appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court decision in its entirety. He then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, assigning errors on the reliance on the positive identification made by Norma Nasayao, on the conclusion that his wife Eleanor and the deceased had an amorous relationship based on love letters, and on the failure to acquit him on reasonable doubt.

Facts

At about five twenty in the morning of October 13, 1983, Norma Vardeloza Nasayao, a forty two year old housewife, was making wrappers out of empty cement bags in her house in Barangay Minasag, Santa Elena, Camarines Norte, when she heard a woman shouting, "Huwag mong saksakin, huwag mong saksakin." She went down to investigate and, from a distance of one meter, saw the accused approach and stab Sofio Libranda on the left breast with a bladed weapon. Sofio then leaned on the shoulder of Eleanor Amparo Mendoza, the wife of the accused, for support.

Norma ran to Sofio's house to ask for help and found his widowed sister Gregoria, who rushed to her brother's side. Gregoria saw Sofio leaning face down on the back of Eleanor while Isidro stood nearby. Sofio sat on a bench, bleeding, and when Gregoria asked who stabbed him, he answered that it was Isidro Mendoza. Gregoria and her brother Nolasco brought Sofio to the clinic of Doctor Cesar Umali, who gave first aid and advised that the victim be taken to a hospital in Calauag, Quezon. Sofio died before reaching Calauag. The death certificate listed stab wounds on the left chest, the left lower chin, the left shoulder, and the right upper chest at the back.

An information dated January 12, 1984 charged Isidro Mendoza with homicide. The defense theory was that it was his wife Eleanor who fatally stabbed Sofio in an attempt to ward off lewd advances, and it presented photographs of bloodstains and a toppled chair in the house, evidence that Eleanor surrendered and gave a statement confessing the stabbing but refused to sign it, and the testimony of a civil defense member, Armando de la Cruz, who saw a man and a woman grappling over a bladed weapon. On cross examination, however, De la Cruz admitted that he did not see the actual stabbing. The trial court found that the blood spatters and the disarray in the house showed that the petitioner stabbed the deceased inside the house, consumed with rage after catching his wife with the half naked Sofio in his own conjugal home, and pursued him to the roadside where Norma Nasayao saw the stabbing.

Issues

• Whether or not the courts below erred in relying on the positive identification made by the eyewitness Norma Nasayao.
• Whether or not the courts below erred in concluding that the wife Eleanor and the deceased Sofio had an amorous relationship based on the love letters.
• Whether or not the petitioner should be acquitted on reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision in full, but it applies the rules on homicide, on the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, and on civil indemnity. The governing provisions are these.

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code defines homicide:

Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

This is the crime for which the petitioner was convicted and which the Court affirmed.

Article 13, paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.

This is the mitigating circumstance the Court recognized, because the petitioner acted upon catching his wife with the deceased in his own home.

Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

In case of conviction for a crime, the following shall be liable for the civil liability arising therefrom: the principal, the accomplice, and the accessory.

This is the basis for the civil indemnity and compensatory damages awarded to the heirs of the victim.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition is devoid of merit. It stressed that when an appealed conviction hinges on the credibility of witnesses, the assessment of the trial court is accorded the highest degree of respect, and absent any proper reason to depart from this rule, the factual conclusions of the lower court, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, should not be disturbed. The transcript reflected the candidness and innate intelligence of Norma Nasayao, whose answers were forthright and direct, and at a distance of one meter it was possible for her to have witnessed the crime as it swiftly unfolded. Her recognition of the petitioner as the knifewielder was strongly corroborated by Gregoria and Nolasco Libranda, to whom the victim himself said that Isidro Mendoza stabbed him. The Court also noted that the defense witness De la Cruz admitted on cross examination that he did not see the actual stabbing.

On the second issue, the Court held that whether or not Eleanor wrote the love letters is not material in view of the positive identification by an eyewitness. The letters are relevant only insofar as they established the motive of the petitioner, which was to avenge his honor as a husband wronged by his wife in the most humiliating manner.

On the third issue, the Court held that the conviction for homicide, mitigated by passion and obfuscation, was in accordance with law and jurisprudence, and must be upheld. There was no reversible error in the decision under review.

Doctrine

First, when an appealed conviction hinges on the credibility of witnesses, the assessment of the trial court is accorded the highest degree of respect, because it had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the demeanor of the witnesses while on the witness stand. Second, an eyewitness account that is candid, forthright, and corroborated by the spontaneous statements of the victim and his relatives is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Third, the motive of a husband who kills upon catching his wife with another man in his own conjugal home is a mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation under Article 13, paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code. Fourth, the civil indemnity for the death of a victim is fixed in line with current jurisprudence, which in this case raised it to 50,000 pesos.

Disposition

The petition was denied for lack of merit, and the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, with the sole modification that the indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the victim was increased to 50,000 pesos, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is accorded the highest degree of respect, and that a husband who kills upon catching his wife with another man in his own home acts upon passion and obfuscation. Examiners like to use this case on the appreciation of eyewitness testimony, on the weight of corroborating spontaneous statements, and on the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation in a homicide charge.