PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANIEL SISON Y ALEGRIA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

In Criminal Case No. D-8195 of the
Regional Trial Court at Dagupan
City (Pangasinan),
Daniel Sison y Alegria was
charged with the crime of Homicide with the Use of Unlicensed Firearm,
committed, as follows:

“That on or about the 20th day of July 1987, in barangay Dinalaoan, municipality
of Calasiao, province of Pangasinan,
New Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot John Ventura with an unlicensed firearm, inflicting upon
him the following injuries:

–         
gunshot wound (point of entry), 5th costo-sternal joint, (L)

–        
powder burns at the periphery of the wound

–         
perforation of the heart (through and through)

–         
perforation of the mediastinal
wall, lower right side

which caused his
death as a consequence, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.”^[1]

When arraigned, the said accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded
not guilty to the charge,^[2]
but, after trial, he was found guilty of
the charge and sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua; to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the
amount of P30,000.00; and to pay the costs.^[3]

From this judgment, he appealed to this Court.

The established facts of the case, according to the Solicitor
General, are as follows:

“On July 20, 1987,
at about 2:30 in the afternoon, John
Ventura was conversing with several persons on a culvert when appellant arrived riding on a bicycle. 
He approached John Ventura and forthwith, drew a gun from his waistline,
pointed the same to Ventura
uttering at the same time:  ‘Agka mibabali pare’ (Don’t
interfere, pare!).  Ventura
instinctively ran towards his house, but appellant chased him.  He caught up with Ventura
in the latter’s yard, about 8
meters away from the culvert.  There,
appellant shot Ventura (tsn, Crisostomo, Jan. 12, 1988, pp. 5-8).  The victim fell and sprawled on the
ground.  Appellant tried to reload the
gun still pointed at the victim, but the latter’s sister, Corazon Ventura Crisostomo, who was at that time only about 1 1/2 meters
away from appellant, grabbed and succeeded in taking possession of the gun from
the latter.  She witnessed the whole incident from the time appellant chased
the victim up to the time he shot him (tsn, ibid, pp.
11-12).

A certain Daniel Alegria, the victim’s
brother-in-law, upon hearing the gun report followed by screams and shouts from
the people, immediately left his house which was about 40 to 50 meters away and
ran towards the place of the commotion. 
He saw Corazon Ventura- Crisostomo wrest the
gun from appellant (tsn, Sison,
Jan. 7, 1988, p. 35).  When appellant saw Daniel Alegria,
he immediately ran away, while Corazon handed the gun to him (Daniel Alegria) telling him to surrender it to the police.  He hired a tricycle and brought Ventura
to the hospital.  Along the way, they
first stopped at the police station to surrender the gun to the
authorities.  The victim died on the way
to the hospital (tsn, Ibid, pp. 39-41).

Dr. Dante Bernabe, a Rural Health
Physician of Calasiao, Pangasinan,
who performed the medico-legal examination on the victim
opined that the victim and the assailant were standing at the time of the
incident (tsn, Bernabe, Jan. 7, 1988, p. 11).  His findings are:

‘ –
gunshot wound (point of entry) 5th costo-sternal
joint, (L)

– powder
burns at the periphery of the wound

– perforation
of the heart (through and through)

– perforation
of the mediastinal wall lower right side.’
(Exhibit “F”)

The cause of death was cardiac failure caused by cardiac
perforation due to gunshot wound.

A certification issued by the
Firearms and Explosive Unit, Camp Crame, Quezon City reveals that appellant
was not a licensed/registered holder of a firearm of any kind.  Records further show that subject firearm is a homemade .45 gun with no
brand name nor serial number, unlicensed and/or unregistered.”^[4]

The appellant, however, denied that he shot the deceased John
Ventura.  He also denied that the gun
belonged to him.  His version of the incident, as summarized by
his counsel, is as follows:

“Accused on his behalf, testified that on July 20, 1987 while repairing his bicycle infront of their house he saw the victim, John Ventura at
the top of the culvert together with Wilfredo Bravo, Avelino Alegria and Carlito Soriano.  That he
boarded his bicycle and went near John Ventura. 
Upon reaching the place, he
told John Ventura ‘Agka Mibabali Pare’.  That
after he uttered the words, John Ventuta immediately
ran towards their house which is about seven to eight meters away from the
culvert.  That John Ventura entered their
house.  Daniel Sison
followed him because he wants (sic) to talk to him as John Ventura was
interfering to (sic) his debtors.  Daniel Sison was
not able to follow him inside their house for in a matter of second John Ventura came out from
their house carrying a gun.  Daniel Sison immediately grabbed the right hand of John Ventura to
wrest possession of the gun;
however, in the process of grappling for possession of the gun it went off
hitting John Ventura.  Daniel Sison
immediately ran towards the house of Brgy. Captain Perfecto Corpuz of Dinalaoan, Calasiao, Pangasinan.  The Brgy. Captain was not at his
house at that time.  Daniel Sison was told to see the Brgy. Captain Perfecto Corpuz at Poblacion, who surrendered him to the police authorities on
that day.

Accused-appellant’s evidence that he grappled for possession of the
gun from the victim, John Ventura was corroborated by the testimony of Benjamin Gutierrez and Arturo
Bravo, both disinterested witnesses who has (sic) no motive to tell a
lie, both testified that they were at Sitio Alegria, Dinalaoan, Calasiao, Pangasinan on July 20, 1987 looking for goats to buy
because they have a purchase order and their supply is not enough.  x x x.”^[5]

In this appeal, the accused-appellant, through his counsel, insists
that he is innocent and assails the trial court for giving credence to the
“absurd and fascinatingly incredible” and biased testimony of the
prosecution witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased; and in not
believing his version which is corroborated by two (2) disinterested witnesses.

We have gone over the record of this case with pain­staking care
and find no merit in the appeal.  The
trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be credible
and we find no reason to disturb
the findings of the trial court.  The record of this case is bereft of any
circumstance from which we may infer that the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses are mere concoctions.  There
are sufficient facts on which said witnesses based their positive
identification of the appellant as the owner of the gun used by him in
killing John Ventura.

Avelino Alegria
declared that he was one of those
persons chatting with John Ventura when the appellant arrived and told the said
John Ventura:  “Agka
mibabali pare” (meaning, Do not interfere pare)
and then drew a gun tucked in his waist
and pointed it at John Ventura who ran away pursued by the appellant.  He was
positive that the gun belonged to the appellant because he saw the same gun in
appellant’s possession the night before the incident.^[6]

Corazon Ventura-Crisostomo, for her
part, declared that she was also among those conversing with John Ventura when
the appellant arrived and drew a gun from his waist which he pointed at John
Ventura saying:  “Do not interfere
pare.” She saw John Ventura running home, followed by the appellant who
shot him; and that when the appellant tried to re-load the gun, she wrested the
gun from the appellant.  She gave the gun
to Daniel Alegria, who had arrived in the meantime,
with instructions to surrender it
to the police.^[7] Daniel Alegria, an
uncle of the appellant,
confirmed her testimony.^[8]

The mere fact that the prosecution witnesses Daniel Alegria and Corazon Ventura-Crisostomo
are closely related to the deceased is not a sufficient reason to disregard
their testimonies since they had no improper motive to testify falsely against
the appellant.  The relationship of the
witnesses to the victim does not render the clear and positive testimonies of
said witnesses less worthy of full faith and credit.  The declarations of interested witnesses are
not necessarily biased and incredible.^[9]

The alleged inconsistency in the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, pointed out by the appellant in his Brief, i.e., that Avelino Alegria declared that
upon hearing a gun shot, he went out of his house which is less than 10 meters from the house of
John Ventura where the shooting took place and saw the said John Ventura sprawled on the ground and the
appellant was no longer there,
whereas, Daniel Alegria, who lived about 40 to 50
meters away from the house of John Ventura stated that upon hearing the
gun shot, he ran to the direction from
where the gun shot came and saw his sister-in-law Corazon Ventura-Crisostomo grappling with
the appellant for the possession of the gun, is in the nature of a minor
detail.  It does not affect the integrity
of the witnesses’ testimonies.  It is well-settled that inconsistencies on minor details do not affect
credibility as they refer only to collateral matters which do not touch upon
the commission of the crime itself.

At any rate, the issue is one of credibility of witnesses and it is a settled rule that
findings of fact of trial courts which heard the witnesses and assessed their
credibility are not to be disturbed on appeal where there is no abuse of
discretion imputed to them.  Herein
appellant failed to demonstrate that his case falls within the exception that
would justify this Court to overturn the findings of the trial court.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is
hereby AFFIRMED
with the sole modification
that the indemnity to be paid by
the appellant to the heirs of the victim
is increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with
the new policy of the Court on
this matter.  Costs
against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Paras, J., on leave.

^[1] Original Record, p. 57

^[2] Id.,
p. 88

^[3] Id.,
p. 175

^[4] Appellee’s Brief, pp. 5-8

^[5] Appellant’s Brief, pp. 4-6

^[6] tsn of January 7, 1988, pp. 25-26

^[7] tsn of January 12, 1988, pp. 11-14

^[8] tsn of January 7,
1988, pp. 35-39

^[9] People vs. Kipte, G.R.
No. L-26662, October 30, 1971, 42 SCRA 198 and cases cited; People vs. Canada, G.R. No. 63728, September 15, 1986,
144 SCRA 121 and cases cited; People vs.
Ocaya, G.R. No. 75074, September 15, 1986,
114 SCRA 165