THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANTE FLORES Y PONCE, LARRY PONCE Y BUNGABONG AND OLIVER GUERRERO Y DAVIS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Flores

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Dante Flores, Larry Ponce, and Oliver Guerrero for the killing of Salvador Catbagan. The Information charged them with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, alleging conspiracy, treachery, and abuse of superior strength. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a compact illustration of three recurring bar themes: the deference given to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, the rule that where conspiracy is proven the identity of the person who delivered the fatal blow need not be shown, and the sufficiency of circumstantial physical evidence, here the number and dimensions of the stab wounds, to establish that more than one knife and more than one assailant were involved.

Procedural History

The three accused were charged by the Provincial Fiscal of La Union before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, San Fernando, La Union. All three pleaded not guilty and went to trial. In a decision dated 23 June 1987, the trial court convicted all three of murder, sentenced each to reclusion perpetua, and ordered them to indemnify the heirs of the deceased jointly and severally in the amount of 30,000 pesos for the death and 5,980 pesos for wake and burial expenses, plus costs. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning errors on the appreciation of the prosecution evidence, the failure to consider circumstances favorable to them, and the conviction itself.

Facts

In the evening of 3 June 1984, Dante Flores, Larry Ponce, and Oliver Guerrero met at the Town Plaza of San Fernando, La Union, intending to attend an amateur singing contest. They arrived too late, then missed the last full movie show at the Nancy Theater, and so decided to drink beer at the Daily Fast Foods, a restaurant about 100 meters from the theater. After several bottles they decided to call it a night. While waiting for a tricycle along P. Burgos Street, a man who was apparently drunk, later identified as Salvador Catbagan, approached them and urinated on the leg and feet of Dante Flores. Catbagan then asked Flores whether he had any objection, and Flores answered, none, manong. Catbagan asked the same of Larry Ponce and Oliver Guerrero, and each gave the same negative answer.

Barangay Captain Juanito Go was patrolling near the Nancy Theater at around ten o'clock that evening when he became aware of a commotion. He ran toward it and saw Catbagan fleeing, with three individuals chasing him. Catbagan lost his balance and fell, and when he tried to rise and run he was caught by Dante Flores. Catbagan fell again, and Go noticed that he was bleeding. The three accused ran northward along the highway. Patrolmen Felipe Martinez and Reynaldo Biares chased them in a tricycle, caught up with them about half a kilometer away, and brought them to the police station.

Romeo Palabay and Luzviminda Nigos were in front of the Nancy Theater looking at the still pictures on display when their attention was drawn to a commotion at the Petron gasoline station across the street, about 20 meters away. Romeo saw Salvador Catbagan being mauled and beaten, and ran toward the group to succor him. He identified the three accused as the attackers, and had to avoid a stabbing attack on himself by Dante Flores. He carried Catbagan to a tricycle and brought him to Bethany Hospital, where Catbagan expired upon arrival. Dr. Arturo Llavore of the National Bureau of Investigation performed the autopsy, which revealed assorted contusions and abrasions, incised wounds, and five stab wounds of varying depths and entry dimensions. Scrapings taken from the fingers of Dante Flores turned out to be dried human blood of the AB type, the same blood type as the victim's.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating the prosecution evidence as showing that the three appellants mauled and inflicted the wounds that caused the death of Salvador Catbagan.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not considering circumstances favorable to the accused.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellants.
• Whether or not the accused-appellants should be acquitted.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as invoked in the Information, defines and penalizes murder:

Contrary to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

This is the provision under which the accused were charged and convicted, and it fixes the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err. At least two eyewitnesses, Norma Ucol and Romeo Palabay, positively and definitely identified the appellants as having mauled and beaten the victim. The Court restated the settled rule that the findings of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are to be given weight and a high degree of respect by the appellate court, and that where nothing in the record shows the prosecution witnesses were moved by improper motive to accuse falsely the appellants of so grave a crime as murder, those findings must be respected.

On the alleged contradictions, the Court found no necessary inconsistency. Norma Ucol's failure to identify which of the three delivered the blow was not critical, because conspiracy was alleged and proven, and the Court laid down the governing rule:

where there is conspiracy, a showing as to who inflicted the fatal blow is not required.

As to Romeo Palabay's mention of a name not among the accused, the Court noted that he pointed out the three accused in court, that he had not known any of them before the killing and learned their names only at the police station, that defense counsel did not object at the time, and that the presence of all the accused at the time and place of the crime was established by other prosecution witnesses. As to the claim that Barangay Captain Go took no knife from Flores, the Court found nothing contradictory, since Flores had the opportunity to drop or get rid of the knife before he was caught. Minor discrepancies, the Court observed, are natural and even enhance credibility.

On the remaining issues, the Court sustained the finding of conspiracy from the physical evidence. The number of wounds and their differing dimensions meant that more than one knife had been used and that more than one person had inflicted them, and the eyewitnesses had seen the three accused delivering blows immediately before the victim ran, fell, and bled. The conviction therefore stood.

Doctrine

First, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded weight and a high degree of respect on appeal, especially where no improper motive is shown on the part of the prosecution witnesses. Second, where conspiracy is alleged and proven, it is not necessary to show who among the conspirators inflicted the fatal blow, because the act of one is the act of all. Third, conspiracy may be established not only by direct testimony but by circumstantial physical evidence, such as the number and varying dimensions of stab wounds showing that more than one weapon and more than one assailant were involved. These rules operate within the charge of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of all three accused for murder and upheld the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of damages to the heirs of Salvador Catbagan.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that where there is conspiracy, a showing as to who inflicted the fatal blow is not required. Examiners use this case to test credibility review on appeal, the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to prove conspiracy, and the treatment of minor inconsistencies in witness testimony.