PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO C. VENTURA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The accused-appellant seeks a
reversal of his conviction for the crime of Murder in a Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 49 (Pilot Court), promulgated on 4 May
1989, which included the sentence of reclusion perpetua, and the
order to pay the amount of P30,000.00 as
moral and exemplary damages.^[1]

On 11 September 1991, the Court had considered this case closed
and terminated in view of accused-appellant’s letter of 6 March 1991
manifesting that he was no longer interested in pursuing his appeal. However, the appeal was reinstated on 22
January 1992 upon reconsideration sought by accused-appellant himself without
objection from his counsel.

The accused-appellant was charged with the crime of Murder for
having stabbed, with treachery, Melvin Navida y Namayan, on the left chest and
on the right side of his body and inflicting on him a mortal wound, which was
the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.

Assisted by counsel de oficio, he was duly
arraigned on 14 May 1985, and pleaded “Not Guilty” to the charge.

The prosecution evidence upon which the Trial Court based its
finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rests primarily on two eyewitnesses’
testimonies, summarized as follows: On
17 March 1985 at about 6:10 o’clock in the evening, Antonio Comen, Alfredo Sarote,
and Edgardo Simbre were drinking in the backyard of a house owned by Antonio
Comen’s mother, located at No. 1517-B (Interior) Pedro Gil Street, Paco
Manila. Although it was dark, the
backyard was illuminated by light coming from the Comen house as well as from
the house of Pacita Ventura, mother of the accused-appellant, which was only
three (3) meters away.

At 7 o’clock that same evening, accused-appellant Francisco C.
Ventura who was apparently drunk, arrived at the backyard where the trio was
drinking. Accused-appellant asked
Simbre if he was “Totoy”, and at the same instance boxed Simbre on the right
side of the latter’s face. Simbre did
not put up a fight, while Comen and Sarote pacified the attacker, advising him
thus: “That is enough, Pare.” Accused-appellant
was prevailed upon, left the scene, and
went to the house of his mother, Pacita.

Two minutes later, the victim, Melvin Navida, alias Ben Ulo, arrived. He was known
by the trio, since he used to reside in the area, but he moved to Bataan
where he settled down. This was one of
the rare times he had come to Manila. Navida was looking for a
mahjong table, but he did not find one. Seeing Simbre seated on a “papag” (bamboo bench), Navide seated himself
beside Simbre, who was the brother of his “compadre”. The two talked. Navide
had been in the backyard for only about one (1) minute, when accused-appellant
returned, his hand covered by a white towel, which as it turned out later on,
concealed a knife. There, and then,
accused-appellant suddenly pulled out a kitchen knife and thrust it into
Navida, stabbing the latter twice: once
on the left part of the chest, hitting the heart, and thence on the right side
of the body.

At the time of the attack, the victim was seated beside Simbre on
the “papag”. Comen was about
one-and-a-half meters away from the victim. Accused-appellant had stood in front of Simbre. Comen, at first, thought accused-appellant
had merely boxed Navide, but after the first stab, he realized what was
happenning.

After stabbing his victim twice, the assailant ran to his
mother’s house. The victim did not die
at once. He was able to run to a house
three (3) meters away. Comen reported
the stabbing incident to the Barangay headquarters. Three (3) Barangay Tanods, together with Sarote and Simbre, were
able to bring the victim to the Emergency Room of the Philippine General
Hospital, but the latter expired 30 minutes later.

Upon being investigated at the Police Headquarters, Comen and
Simbre alleged that although accused-appellant and the victim knew each other,
they could not posit any motive for the stabbing of the latter by the former.

Meanwhile, Edgardo Simbre lodged a complaint against herein
accused-appellant for injuries he sustained (as evidenced by a medical
certificate issued by a physician who examined him at the Philippine General
Hospital), after the latter had boxed him earlier that night, in the Comen
backyard.

The accused-appellant, the sole witness for the defense, denied
knowledge of the fatal incident, his version being that: he was employed as painter at the San Miguel Corporation’s branch office
near the Del Pan Bridge. On 17 March
1985, he left work at 5 o’clock in the afternoon, and proceeded to the house
located at No. 1511-D Fabie Street, Paco Manila. It was where accused-appellant, together with his mother, sister,
and brother, lived. As he was very
tired, and considering also that he had work the next day, accused-appellant
decided against leaving the house anymore, and instead watched television that
night.

Early the following morning, as accused-appellant was preparing
to leave for work, two policemen went to their residence, looking for one
Danilo Ventura. Accused-appellant’s
sister, who had allowed them into the house, told the men that although the
house was the Ventura residence,
nobody by the name of Danilo Ventura, lived there. However, the two policemen suddenly pounced on
accused-appellant. He was handcuffed
and brought to a waiting police car. His family was unable to get the names of the policemen who took him
away. Accused-appellant was taken to a
house by the cemetery. There he was boxed and physically punished, to
force him to admit to having killed Melvin Navida, whom he did not even know at
all. At around 4 o’clock in the afternoon
of that same day, he was taken to the Headquarters of the Western Police
District. As they entered, he saw two men talking to the police
investigator. He did not know the two
men. Accused-appellant was placed
inside a detention cell. He saw the two
men and the police investigator approach the cell, and he heard the latter tell
the duo: “Iyan ang pumatay. Sige, ituro ninyo at suntukin ninyo.” One of
the two men, whom he came to know later was Antonio Comen, boxed him (the
victim) on the right side of his face. He reiterated his denial of having killed anyone. He was even more puzzled by how these two
men, whom he had never met before, could point to him as the killer of a person
whom he also did not know.

Continuing, accused-appellant maintains that no investigation was
conducted. He was released eight (8)
days after being detained, and only after he had signed documents already
prepared. At the time he affixed his
signature, he was not assisted by counsel. Accused-appellant also testified that one Sgt. Martinez told him that if
he had P4,000.00, the crime
charged could be changed from Murder to Homicide. He responded to the policeman by reiterating his avowal of
innocence.

The accused-appellant contends that the Trial Court judgment is
flawed in that 1) the statement given by him during the investigation is
inadmissible because he was not assisted by counsel; 2) he cannot be convicted
of Murder because the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proved and
3) he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of intoxication.

The accused-appellant particularly objects to the statement that
he “verbally admitted having stabbed the aforementioned victim,” contained in
item No. 41 of the Booking And Information Sheet (Exh. C), which we quote:

“41. FACTS KNOWN TO ARRESTED
OFFICERS/CIRCUMSTANCES OF ARREST:

“Herein accused was booked and arrested for the aforecited offense
wherein the victim is MELVIN NAVIDA y NAMAYAN, 33 years old, married, native of
Kalibu, Aklan, and last resided at No. 1517 Concordia St., Paco, Manila
(Deceased), which was committed as follows:

“That on or about 7:30 p.m., March 17, 1985, in front of Hse
#1571-D Pedro Gil, Paco, Manila, herein accused with intent to kill,
treacherously stabbed the aforenamed victim, with the use of a kitchen knife
(not recovered), and as a consequence of which said victim sustained stab
wounds on the left chest and on the right arm that caused his death at the PGH,
some few minutes after arriving thereat.

“When investigated, accused after having been apprised of his
Constitutional Rights verbally admitted having stabbed the aforenamed victim
but claimed self defense.

“Accused was positively identified by 3 eyewitnesses to the
incident as the very same person they saw treacherously stabbed (sic) the aforenamed
victim.

(SGD)
FRANCISCO VENTURA

(Signature
of Person Arrested)

(Attesting Nos. 1-31, 42)

“(SGD)
PFC. EMMANUEL P. FLORES

(Signature
of Arresting Officer)

(Attesting
Nos. 1,32-42)”

(Original Record, page
150; emphasis ours).

It is clear from the
very text itself that it is the
arresting officer who attests to the narration of facts therein and not the
accused-appellant. As Policeman First
Class Emmanuel P. Flores, of the Western Police District, testified:

“A. I would like to clarify that the signature
of the accused in the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report only confirms the matters
related to his personal circumstances, but not on the other facts contained
therein, sir” (TSN, January 27, 1986, page 17).

The same policeman declared that the accused-appellant refused to give a written statement
(ibid.). In fact, the testimony of the
accused-appellant is to the effect that although he was forced to admit the
killing of Navida, he refused to do so (TSN, January 4, 1989, pages 7 and 9).

The records likewise disclose that the conviction of the
accused-appellant is not based on any statement he might have given to the
police authorities while under investigation but mainly on the testimonies of
two (2) eyewitnesses. As the Trial
Court categorically observed and found:

“When Edgardo Simbre and Antonio Comen testified before the Court,
they unerringly identified and pointed to the Accused as the assailant of
Melvin Navida.

“There is no shred of competent evidence in the record to prove ill
or devious motive on the part of Antonio Comen and Edgardo Simbre to
prevaricate and concoct the charge against the Accused and/or to tergiversate
their testimony to convict the Accused. Absent any such ill or pernicious motive, the Court must accord credence
and full evidentiary weight to the testimony of the two (2) witnesses of the
Prosecution.” (RTC Decision, page 10).

Treachery was evident in the manner that accused-appellant
carried out the attack. Merely a minute
had elapsed from the time the deceased Melvin Navida had arrived and sat beside
Edgardo Simbre with whom he was conversing, when the accused-appellant, who
came from his mother’s house which was three (3) meters away, appeared and
without, saying a word, stabbed Navida on the left breast and on the right side
of the body (TSN, July 8, 1985, page 11; TSN, August 26, 1985, pages 26 and
29). The place where the incident
occurred was quite dark (TSN, July 8, 1985, page 8). The accused-appellant concealed the weapon in a towel such that
the persons present saw it only after he had used it on Navida (TSN, August 26,
1985, pages 29 and 30). In fact,
witness Antonio Comen testified that he first thought that the accused had
merely boxed the victim only to realize later that the victim had been actually
stabbed (TSN, July 8, 1985, page 5).

The attack was sudden and the deceased absolutely unprepared to
put up a defense. The latter was an
unsuspecting victim, since the accused-appellant testified that he did not know
Navida (TSN, January 4, 1989, page 14). Neither was the victim present when the accused-appellant boxed Edgardo
Simbre. He was completely unaware of
this prior confrontation.

In People v. Tajon, G.R. No. L-47067, 17 April, 1984, 128 SCRA
656, with a similar factual milieu, the Court ruled:

“The crime committed by appellant Tajon is murder, qualified by
treachery as alleged in the information. There was treachery because appellant made a deliberate surprise and
unexpected assault on Exequiel Lucero. When appellant emerged from the dark, rushed in front of his victim,
suddenly grabbed his collar and shot his forehead, left breast and left arm in
rapid succession, Lucero was completely unaware of what would happen to
him. Stated differently, the victim was
caught flat-footed and was not in a position to put up a defense against the
unforeseen assault upon him. The fact
that the attack was frontal does not negate the presence of alevosia
considering that the victim was shot in a defenseless situation.” (page 663)

Intoxication or drunkenness is mitigating if not habitual nor
intentional, and it must be indubitably proved (Art. 15, Revised Penal Code;
People v. Camano, 115 SCRA 6588 [1982]). Accused-appellant is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of intoxication
merely on the declaration of the prosecution witness that appellant was drunk
(Exh. D, Original Record, page 151). Accused-appellant must prove that such intoxication is not habitual nor
intentional. This he failed to do, for
the reason that the accused-appellant’s defense was that of alibi.

In light of the circumstances of the case at bar, we hold that
the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of Murder has been established
beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE,  the
judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED with the modification that the amount of
indemnification is increased to P50,000.00
following our recent pronouncements.

Costs against accused-appellant, Francisco C. Ventura.

SO ORDERED.

Paras, Padilla, Regalado, and
Nocon, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Judge Romeo J. Callejo, presiding.