G.R. No. 92020. October 19, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELISEO MARTINADO Y AGUILLON, HERMOGENES MARTINADO Y AGUILLON AND JOHN DOE, ALIAS “ROLLY”, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
DAVIDE , JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the decision[1] of
Branch 124 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalookan City, in Criminal Case
No. C-27858, promulgated on 2 February 1989, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
“WHEREFORE, this Court finds both the accused ELISEO MARTINADO
Y AGUILLON and HERMOGENES MARTINADO Y AGUILLON guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of robbery with homicide as defined and penalized under paragraph
1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. There being no appreciable aggravating nor
(sic) mitigating circumstances, this Court hereby sentences each of the accused
to suffer imprisonment under the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. The two accused are also directed to
indemnify the heirs of Juan Matias jointly and severally the (sic) amount of
P30,000.00; to return the money and the pieces of jewelry, subject matter of
the robbery, and if unable to do so, to pay the entire value thereof in the
total amount of P5,100.00 to the legal heirs of the victim and to pay the
costs.
The accused HERMOGENES MARTINADO shall be credited in the service
of his sentence with the full time that he has undergone preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of the
Revised Penal Code provided the conditions
prescribed thereon have been complied with.
SO ORDERED.”
At the outset, this Court has to resolve the propriety of the
interposed appeal insofar as accused Eliseo Martinado is concerned.
The promulgation of the decision on 22 February 1989 was made in
his absence because he had earlier escaped on 6 August 1988,[2]
exactly five (5) days after the defense rested its case, from the Kalookan City
Jail. The escape, however, was reported
to the trial court only on 8 August 1988.[3]
Consequently, the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest on 10 February
1988[4]
which was returned unserved on 28 February 1989 because “per information
gathered from the resident (sic) thereat revealed that accused cannot (sic) be
seen for long (sic) period of time.”[5]
It was only on 10 April 1989 that Eliseo was re-arrested in Palo,
Leyte by a Special Action Team of the Kalookan Police Station.[6]
On 2 March 1989, Atty. Domingo M. Ballon, counsel of record for
Hermogenes and Eliseo, filed a notice of appeal for both accused. It reads:
“NOTICE OF APPEAL
Accused, by their undersigned counsel to this Honorable Court
hereby gives (sic) notice, that
they are appealing the decision of this Honorable Court, dated February 2,
1989, and promulgated on Feb. 22, 1989, convicting
the accused to suffer and undergo
an imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua, to the Supreme Court, for the reason
that said decision is contrary to law and evidence.”[7]
In view of such appeal, the trial court issued on the same date
an order directing the transmittal to this Court of the records of the case
together with the transcripts of stenographic notes and exhibits.[8]
In promulgating judgment in
absentia with respect to Eliseo, and in giving due course to the
appeal of both accused, the trial court must have had in mind the third
paragraph of Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court which reads:
x x x
“The proper clerk of court shall give notice to the accused
personally or through his bondsman or warden and counsel, requiring him to be
present at the promulgation of the decision. In case the accused fails to appear thereat the promulgation shall
consist in the recording of the judgment in the criminal docket and a copy
thereof shall be served upon the accused or counsel. If the judgment is for conviction, and the accused’s failure to
appear was without justifiable cause, the court shall further order the arrest
of the accused, who may appeal within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
decision to him or his counsel. (6a).”
Indeed, no cause for non-appearance
during promulgation is more justified than the escape of the accused from the
city jail where he was confined during the trial of the case. However, in the recent case of People vs. Mapalao,[9]
decided on 14 May 1991, this Court, applying by analogy Section 8, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal
Procedure, held that an accused who had escaped from confinement during trial
on the merits and who remains at large at
the time of promulgation of the judgment of conviction loses his right to
appeal therefrom unless he voluntarily submits the jurisdiction of the court or
is otherwise arrested within fifteen (15) days from notice of judgment. The reason therefor is that an accused who
escapes from detention, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country loses his
standing in court; unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the
court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief therefrom. This Court then took the opportunity to
suggest a modification of the last sentence of the aforequoted third paragraph
of Section 6 of Rule 120. Thus:
“To this effect a modification is in order of the provision of
the last sentence of Section 6, Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal
Procedure which provides:
‘If the judgment is for conviction, and the accused’s failure to
appear was without justifiable cause, the court shall further order the arrest
of the accused, who may appeal within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
decision to him or his counsel’
It should provide instead that if upon promulgation of the
judgment, the accused fails to appear without justifiable cause, despite due
notice to him, his bondsmen or counsel, he is thereby considered to have waived
his right to appeal. However, if within
the fifteen (15) day period of appeal he voluntarily surrenders to the court or
is otherwise arrested, then he may avail of the right to appeal within said
period of appeal.
By the same token, an accused who, after the filing of an
information, is at large and has not been apprehended or otherwise has not
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court, cannot apply far bail or be
granted any other relief by the courts until he submits himself to its
jurisdiction or is arrested.”[10]
If We were to apply this ruling to the case of Eliseo, his appeal
should not be given due course. Considering, however, that Mapalao announces a new doctrine by
making the second paragraph of Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, which
reads:
“SEC. 8. Dismissal
of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. — x x x
The Court may also, upon motion of the appellee or on its own motion,
dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement or jumps
bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.”
apply by analogy to the last sentence of
the third paragraph of Section 6 of Rule 120, and that application thereof to
Eliseo would be prejudicial to him, this Court, guided by the rule that laws
shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided[11]
and judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution
shall form part of our legal system[12] and,
further taking into account the principle that once a doctrine of this Court is
overruled and a different view is adopted, the new doctrine should be applied prospectively
and not retroactively to parties who had relied on the old doctrine and acted
on the faith thereof,[13] hereby declares that the rule
enunciated in Mapalao should not be applied to Eliseo. Thus, his appeal is hereby given due course.
Having cleared the way for the appeal of both accused, We shall
now take up the appeal proper.
Accused Hermogenes Martinado and Eliseo Martinado, together with
a certain John Doe alias “Rolly” who remains to be at large, were
originally charged with the crime of murder in an Information prepared and
filed by Assistant City Fiscal Arturo A. Rojas on 17 November 1986.[14]
The information fails to mention anything
about robbery. Consequently, a motion
for reinvestigation was filed by the offended party. On 4 March 1987, an Amended Information[15] was filed by 1st Assistant City Fiscal
Rogelio M. de Leon charging the accused with the crime of Robbery with
Homicide. This was further amended on 10 March 1987 by a 2nd Amended Information,[16] the accusatory portion of which reads:
“That on or about the 14th day of November 1986 in Caloocan
City, Metro-Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping with one another,
with intent of (sic) gain and with intent to kill, by means of violence and
intimidation employed upon the person of JUAN MATIAS y REYES that is by
attacking and stabbing the latter with a sharp pointed instrument, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry away the
following articles, to wit.:
1. Seiko men’s watch
(5) worth – – P 800.00
2. Men’s ring worth – – P1,800.00
3. Wallet containing
cash in the amount of – – P2,500.00
————-
Total – – P5,100.00
all belonging to the said Juan Matias y
Reyes, to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the aforementioned total
amount of P5,100.00; and as a result thereof, Juan Matias sustained serious
physical injuries, which injuries caused his death (DOA) at the Quezon City
General Hospital.
Contrary to Law.”
Eliseo and Hermogenes Martinado were arraigned with the
assistance of counsel on 22 September 1987;[17] both
entered pleas of “Not Guilty”. The other accused,
John Doe @ Rolly, has not been formally identified and is still at large. Immediately after arraignment, a motion for
bail was heard by the trial court; the same was eventually denied.[18]
Trial subsequently ensued with the prosecution presenting
Margarita Padrinao, Elizabeth C. Carillo, Dr. Mariano Cueva, Jr. (Medico-Legal
Officer), Nicanor Matias, Angel Nieto, Gerardo Arellano, P/Sgt. Manuel
Buenaobra and David Nerza; for the defense, both accused were presented.
On 22 February 1989, the trial court promulgated its decision
based on the prosecution’s version of the incident summarized as follows:
“The following is the version as shown by the evidence adduced
by the Prosecution:
At about 6:15 o’clock in the afternoon of November 14, 1986,
Margarita Padrinao, a maid, was watching television at the house of her master,
Juan Matias. She then entered the
sari-sari store of her master which is three ‘arms’ length away from the place
where she was watching television in order to feed the pigs. She saw Juan Matias tending the sari-sari
store. She also saw two customers
drinking softdrinks outside the window grilles of the store. (TSN-Nov. 10, 1987, M. Padrinao, pp.
6-7). She identified them as Eliseo and
Hermogenes Martinado.
At about this time, Elizabeth Carillo, a neighbor and a government
employe (sic), passed by the same sari-sari store on her way to make a phone
call at a house located at nearby Villa Maria Subdivision. She saw Juan Matias attending to three
customers drinking softdrinks at the sari-sari store. She identified them as Eliseo Martinado, Hermogenes Martinado and
‘Rolly’. (TSN-Nov. 19, 1987, E.
Carillo, pp. 6-8).
A short while later, Margarita who had just fed the pigs heard a
loud snore coming from the store. She
hurriedly went back to the store and as she reached the front of the store she
saw Eliseo and Hermogenes helping one another in stabbing Juan Matias. (TSN?Nov. 10, 1987, M. Padriano, pp.
8; 32). Each of these accused was armed
with pointed, thin instruments which each used in the stabbing. The stabbing took place inside the store
near the place where rice was being kept. Margarita then shouted in a loud voice, ‘Tulungan ninyo po kami.’ The two accused then fled thru the gate at
the fence of the house. After she
shouted, some people approached the store but Hermogenes and Eliseo Martinado had
already fled. (TSN-Nov. 19,1987 M.
Padrinao, pp. 9-10). She then
approached Juan Matias who lay on the flooring of the store. Mrs. Dominga
Matias, the wife of Juan, likewise approached Juan Matias whom they found to be
bloodied with several stab wounds at (sic) the neck, breast and abdomen. (TSN-Nov. 19, 1987, M. Padrinao, pp. 11).
In the meantime, Elizabeth Carillo had to pass the said store on
her way back to her residence, having failed to contact a friend thru the
phone. She heard somebody shouting
‘saklolo’ and she saw three persons running from the sari-sari store of Juan
Matias. These were the same three persons she previously saw drinking
softdrinks. ‘Rolly’ was running ahead
of the other two, Eliseo and Hermogenes Martinado. Then she saw Rolly stop and
retrace his steps to pick up a watch near the gate of the fence surrounding the
house of Juan Matias before resuming his flight. The two brothers continued to run away. Eliseo was seen holding something in his bloodied hand and
Hermogenes was also seen holding something in his hand which was bloodied. Elizabeth then entered the sari-sari store
and she saw Juan Matias lying down, face upward, inside the sari-sari store and
had (sic) stab wounds on (sic) his bloodied neck. He was still snorting, so Elizabeth called for help to bring Juan
to the hospital. (TSN-Nov. 10, 1987, E.
Carillo, pp. 8-11). Juan was brought to
the Quezon City General Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.
At about the same time, Angel Nieto, the Tanod executive officer of
the Barangay, was at the house of his brother also at Deparo street when he
heard people shouting ‘Harangin, harangin.’ He went out of the house into the
street and he was able to see three
men coming from the direction of the house of Juan Matias and being chased by
the residents. He was able to observe
two of the said three men. These two
men had bloodied hands and bloodied clothes. He then asked the residents why they were chasing the three men and they
replied that these men had just stabbed Juan Matias. (TSN-Dec. 22, 1987, A. Nieto, pp. 4-5)
Gerardo Arellano, a Barangay tanod of the place where the incident
occurred, also heard the aforesaid shouting from his house which is located
also at Deparo street. He came to know
from Elizabeth Carillo and Margarita Padrinao that Juan Matias was stabbed to
death. Together with other tanods and residents of the place, they began
looking for Eliseo Martinado, Hermogenes Martinado and Rolly as these were the
suspects mentioned by Elizabeth Carillo
and Margarita Padrinao. (TSN-Feb. 9,
1988, G. Arellano, pp. 5-6).
Gerardo Arellano and his companions proceeded to the house of
‘Rolly’ at the Sterling compound and after they were granted permission by the
wife of ‘Rolly’ to enter the house to look for ‘Rolly’, they entered. They found Hermogenes Martinado under a
lavatory trembling. They then went to
the Visayan Motors and after obtaining permission from the owner thereof, they
went inside the premises and found Eliseo Martinado who was packing his clothes
ready to leave. (TSN-Feb. 9, 1988,
Arellano, pp. 9-13). Eliseo and
Hermogenes Martinado were invited to go
to the house of Juan Matias and both were identified by Elizabeth
Carillo and Margarita Padrinao as two of the persons (sic) who barged into the
house of Juan Matias. (TSN-Feb. 9,
1988, Arellano p. 14). The two suspects
were then brought to the Urduja Police Sub-Station and were then turned over to
Sgt. Manuel Buenaobra of the Caloocan City Police Station. They were later brought to the Caloocan City
Police Headquarters by Sgt. Buenaobra. (TSN-Feb. 15, 1988, M. Buenobra, p. 8).
During the investigation conducted at the house of Juan Matias by
the police on November 14, 1986, Margarita Padrinao discovered that the Seiko V
watch worn everyday by Juan Matias was no longer in his wrist. She also found that the wallet which Juan
Matias kept at the back pocket of his pants was missing. (TSN-Nov. 10, 1987, M. Padrinao, pp. 16-17).
This robbery was reported by Dominga Matias, the widow of the victim
to the Caloocan City Police Headquarters on November 16, 1986. (TSN-Feb. 15, 1988, M. Buenaobra, p.
16). (See Police Blotter, page 188 of
the Caloocan City Police Station dated November 16, 1986, EXHIBIT
“J”). Mrs. Dominga Matias listed the articles found
missing from their store at Deparo street, Caloocan City, after the death of
Juan Matias, as follows:
Seiko wristwatch
——————— P 800.00
Gold ring
——————————– P1,800.00
Cash contained in
missing wallet
————————- P2,500.00
Nicolas Matias, a son of Juan Matias, corroborated the loss of the
above articles and estimated their value in his testimony of December 21,
1987. He discovered the loss on the
night of November 14, 1986, after reaching the Quezon City General Hospital
where his mother told him that these articles could no longer be found in the
body of the victim. When he returned to
his father’s residence at Deparo street, Caloocan City, also on the evening of
November 14, 1986, he verified, after a search of the sari-sari store and the
house that those articles were indeed missing. (TSN-Dec. 21, 1987, N. Matias, pp. 4-6).[19]
x x x
It is undisputed that Juan Matias, 70 years old, died on November
14, 1986. The cause of death was
hemorrhage secondary to stab wounds, neck and chest. (EXHIBIT “E”). Dr. Mariano Cueva, NBI Medico-Legal Officer, stated that he found
contusions on the front portion of the neck of the victim; 4 incised wounds,
one on the left arm and three on the left forearm; four stab wounds, one over
left front of the neck and three at the left front chest. (TSN – Nov. 20, 1987, Dr. Cueva, pp.
7-8). (EXHIBITS “F” and
“G”). The most mortal of the
wounds was that found over the left front chest. (TSN – Nov. 20, 1987, pp. 8-9).[20]
x x x
Dr. Cueva narrated that the incised wounds found on the body of the
victim could shave been brought about by contact with a sharp cutting edge like
the edge of a knife or sharp metal object. He also said that the stab wounds could have been produced by a pointed,
single-edged or single-bladed instrument like a kitchen knife or dagger. He added that the number of wounds inflicted
on the victim does not preclude the fact that there was more than one assailant
using similar instruments. (TSN – Nov.
20, 1987, pp. 9-10; 20).”[21]
The trial court concluded that the prosecution established
convincingly that Juan Matias was robbed at about 6:30 o’clock in the evening
of 14 November 1986 by the accused Hermogenes and Eliseo Martinado who
conspired with each other and with Rolly. Under the circumstances above narrated, the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide penalized under paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised
Penal Code was committed. The motive of
the accused was to rob Juan Matias.
As earlier adverted to, the accused through counsel filed a
Notice of Appeal on 2 March 1989. Despite the trial court’s order to forward the records of the case to
this Court, the clerk of court of the court a quo erroneously
transmitted the same to the Court of Appeals on 19 February 1990.[22]
The latter subsequently forwarded the records to this Court on 22 February
1990.[23]
In the Resolution dated 12 March 1990, We accepted the appeal
interposed by the accused.[24]
The accused filed their Appellants’ Brief on 20 December 1990[25]
while the Office of the Solicitor General filed the Brief for the
Plaintiff-Appellee on 30 January 1991.[26]
The appeal is anchored on the following assignment of errors:
“I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED HERMOGENES MARTINADO
AND ELISEO MARTINADO ARE GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY
WITH HOMICIDE.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANTS HERMOGENES
MARTINADO AND ELISEO MARTINADO CONSPIRED WITH A CERTAIN ‘ROLLY’ TO COMMIT THE CRIME
OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.”[27]
In discussing the first error, appellants focus on the arguments
that proof of robbery is wanting and that their guilt for the homicide has not
been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
As to the first, the appellants underscore the fact that it was
only two (2) days after the alleged killing that the loss of the victim’s
personal belongings was reported to the police authorities. They then suggest that “[t]he
wristwatch and the money contained in the wallet could have been stolen when
the cadaver was already in the Hospital or probably in the Morgue;”[28]
that Elizabeth Carillo’s declaration on the witness stand that she saw a
certain “Rolly” return and pick up a watch as he, together with the
accused, were fleeing from the victim’s house, is not sufficient to support the
conclusion that a robbery was committed as the watch could have been Rolly’s;
and that the loss of money was not proven and the witness who claims to have
seen the alleged killing, Margarita Padrinao, did not testify on the actual
taking of property.
We have closely perused through the entire records of the case
and are convinced that the crime of robbery was not proven to have been
committed. No conclusive evidence
proving the physical act of asportation thereof by the accused themselves was
presented by the prosecution.[29] This
Court takes note of the fact that the original information filed three (3) days
after the incident in question
was for Murder and no hint whatsoever of robbery was made therein. The evidence further discloses that it was
only at around 10:30 o’clock in the evening of 16 November 1986 that the widow
of Juan Matias reported to the
Investigation Division of the
Kalookan City Police Station that “they found out that the Seiko
wristwatch worth P800.00; GOLD ring worth P1,800.00 and the amount of P2,500.00 contained in the wallet of his
(sic) slain husband, JUAN MATIAS were
missing presumably (sic) taken by suspects (sic).”[30]
It is settled that in order to sustain a conviction for the crime
of robbery with homicide, it is imperative that the robbery itself be proven as
conclusively as any other essential element of a crime. In the absence of such proof, the killing of
the victim would only be simple homicide or murder, depending on the absence or
presence of qualifying circumstances.[31]
The trial court based its finding of the existence of robbery on
Margarita Padrinao’s and Elizabeth Carillo’s respective testimonies. There is
also the testimony of the victim’s son,
Nicanor Matias, a substantial part of which is hearsay as he constantly alluded
to the information his mother had given him. While Padrinao gave the following statements during her direct
examination:
“FISCAL SILVERIO:
x x x
Q: And
what did the police find out during the investigation, if any?
A: Things
were missing, sir.
Q: Did
you come to know what were those missing things?
A: Watches
(sic), wallet.
Q: How
did you come to know that?
A: Because
he was not wearing his wristwatch and his wallet was missing.
Q: Whose
wallet was missing?
A: Juan
Matias’, sir.
Q: Do
you know what kind of watch is owned or being worn by Juan Matias?
A: Seiko
V, sir.
Q: How
did you come to know that?
A: I
used to see that watch because I have been staying there for a long time.
Q: You
said that wallets (sic) was missing, do you know if there are (sic) money
contained in that wallet?
x x x
COURT:
How did you know that a
wallet was missing?
A: Because
the wallet was no longer at the back pocket of his pants.”[32]
Carillo declared that:
“FISCAL SILVERIO:
Q: When
you said that you saw Rolly, Eliseo and Hermogenes Martinado running out from
the sari-sari store, what happened next, if any?
A: I
saw Rolly returned (sic) and picked (sic) up something, sir.
Q: Did
you see what Rolly picked up at that time?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
was that?
A: A
watch, sir.
Q: Could
you describe the watch picked up by Rolly at that time?
A: I
cannot describe the make, sir, the trademark but it is a watch.”[33]
It is at once apparent that nobody was able to observe that
immediately before the incident, Juan Matias was wearing a wristwatch and a
gold ring and had a wallet in his pocket which contained money; moreover,
nobody witnessed the actual taking by the accused of Juan Matias’ personal
belongings. While Margarita Padrinao
saw Matias being repeatedly stabbed, she failed to notice the latter being
actually divested of his personal effects. Further scrutiny of Padrinao’s testimony reveals that at the time she
declared that “things were missing,” the victim was no longer in
front of her for she had likewise testified that the latter was rushed to the
hospital soon after the stabbing. The
investigation during which she uttered such statements was conducted by police
authorities who arrived at the crime scene long after the victim had been
removed. It would thus be highly
doubtful that Padrinao could credibly assert right then and there that the said
items were missing as, presumably, she was not able to get a clear glimpse of
the victim as he was being brought to the hospital. In fact, if there was any person who could have testified about
the missing items, it would have been Elizabeth Carillo. Together with a neighbor, the victim’s wife
and brother, she brought Juan Matias to the hospital where the latter was
pronounced dead on arrival.[34]
With respect to Carillo’s testimony, the fact that Rolly returned
and picked up a watch is no proof at all that the watch belonged to the victim
for unfortunately, the prosecution failed to elicit from her any information
about the precise place where the watch was picked up in relation to the place
where Juan Matias was stabbed, or the person possessing the same before it was
picked up. In short, she did not
testify that the said watch belonged to and was taken from the victim. Absent such proof, it is highly possible
that the watch could have been, as suggested by the accused, Rolly’s.
The testimony of Nicanor Matias, on the other hand, merely
recounts his own discovery that certain items were missing when he arrived at
his parents’ house after the incident; he also described these missing items
and estimated their respective values. As earlier observed, much of the information he volunteered was based on
what his mother had told him, thus making the same objectionable on the ground
of hearsay.
As basis for the assertion that the crime of homicide has not
been proven beyond reasonable doubt, both accused emphasize that “the
contradiction between the statement of Ms. Margarita Padrinao in her Affidavit
to the effect that ‘Rolly’ was the last person to leave the sari-sari store and
was in fact seen by her ‘INANG’ holding a knife, and that of her testimony in
Court to the effect that she did not see ‘Rolly’ anymore for she immediately
went outside the store shouting for help, had created a semblance of falsehood.
“[35]
The suggested flaw, more apparent than real, betrays strained and
tenuous reasoning. Padrinao’s aforesaid
statement does not at all clash with her testimony during cross-examination. All that she declared during the latter was
that:
“ATTY. BALLON:
Q: I
am going to quote your answer: ‘Oho,
ito hong dalawang ito (affiant pointing to the persons inside the Investigation
Office, who gave their names as Eliseo Martinado y Aguillon alias ELISEO, 20
years old, single, helper, native of Dagami, Leyte, resident of Visayan Auto
Repair Shop, Deparo, Caloocan City, and HERMOGENES MARTINADO y Aguillon, 23
years old, single, laborer,
native of Dagami, Leyte, resident of Sterling Subd., Caloocan City) at isa pa
na magbobote ang pangalan ay Rolly’, did you give that answer?
A: Yes,
sir, because they were three but I did not see the third man because I only
reached (sic) inside the store the two (referring to the two accused).
Q: Now, could you say now, Miss Padrinao, that there were three persons inside the
store?
x x x
Q: Was
this Rolly inside the store when you saw
him?
A: I
did not see him inside the store but the ones I reached (sic) inside the store wer, Eliseo and Hermogenes Martinado,
because right after I saw it (sic) I immediately went out and shouted.
Q: And
so it is clear that you did not see the actual stabbing of Mang Juan, during
the stabbing of Mang Juan you did not see this Rolly?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And
this Rolly was not inside the store before Mang Juan was stabbed?
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x
COURT:
Why did you mention in
your affidavit that the three who killed Juan Matias were Eliseo, Hermogenes
and this Rolly who was magbobote (sic)?
A: I
did not see that Rolly anymore because as I have said when I saw the two
(referring to Eliseo and Hermogenes) helping one another in stabbing Mang Juan,
I ran away and shouted for help.
x x x
ATTY. BALLON:
Q: While (sic) ago, during your direct testimony and
even on the cross examination by this representation you stated categorically
that you only saw two people drinking softdrinks in the store of Mang Juan on
November 14, 1986, at about 6:00 o’ clock in the afternoon and in your
statement Exhibit “A” you stated that also a certain Rolly magbobote
who (sic) was with the two drinking softdrinks, which of them is now
correct? There seems to be a conflict.
A: I
only saw the two of them drinking softdrinks, that is what I saw.”[36]
Padrinao’s failure to notice Rolly inside the store could be
explained by the fact that she immediately left upon seeing Juan Matias being
stabbed by the two (2) accused.[37] It
is very likely that this third person, Rolly, could have just been hidden or
covered by the other two. Thus, it was
only when the stabbing was consummated that she saw all three because they
naturally had to leave the scene of the crime. It is to be observed that Rolly’s presence was confirmed by two (2)
other witnesses, namely Elizabeth Carillo[38] and
Angel Nieto.[39]
Besides, such a minor contradiction does not affect the
credibility of a witness. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to minor and
insignificant details cannot destroy their credibility. In fact, such minor inconsistencies
guarantee sincere and candid evidence of what actually transpired.[40]
Discrepancies in minor details do not impair the credibility of a witness. In the course of a prolonged direct
examination, more so during cross-examination, the witness is usually subjected
to unfriendly questioning. As a result thereof, it is usually the case that the
witness, uncomfortable and fidgety in a courtroom scene, may often fall into
lapses. It is not infrequent for a
witness to commit minor mistakes in his narration of the facts.[41] Rather than affect the credibility of
the witnesses, they are badges of truthfulness and candor.[42]
Margarita Padrinao’s narration of the incident is coherent in its
essential parts and intrinsically believable; hence, it must be accorded due
deference.[43]
In any event, even if We are to give weight to the implication
suggested by the said discrepancy, only Rolly’s liability would be put in doubt
as it is only as to his participation that there would exist any reservation or
question. As to the accused-appellants,
Padrinao was firm in her identification of them.
Coming to the second assigned error, this Court is hard put at
giving the same any credence. For one,
counsel for the accused harps once again on the alleged inconsistencies that
supposedly plague the testimonies of the witnesses; this issue has already been
resolved and needs no further elaboration.
Furthermore, the accused capitalize on the Medico-Legal Officer’s
statement that “the wounds would have been inflicted by one person because
of the nature of the wounds.”[44] The
accused would attempt to mislead this Court by such conclusion because they
deliberately omitted the phrase immediately preceding the quoted declaration —
“It is possible ….”[45]
Thus, all that the said witness did was to suggest that there could have
been one (1) assailant. It was only the
accused who made the categorical declaration to that effect.
Finally, the accused suggest that the evidence necessary to prove
conspiracy was not established because “at the time the Martinado Brothers
were accounted for, Hermogenes Martinado was at the house of Aling Espie, while
Eliseo was at Visayan Auto Repair Shop at Reparo (sic) Street, Kalookan City.“[46]
We have time and again ruled that alibi is at best a weak defense
and easy of fabrication.[47] It
cannot prevail over a positive identification made by a prosecution witness.[48]
For such a defense to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused was
somewhere else when the crime was committed but that he must also demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to
have been at the scene of the crime.[49]
As found by the trial court, both accused were apprehended in the
vicinity of the crime scene shortly after the felony was committed. While Hermogenes was found trembling under
the lavatory in Rolly’s house, Eliseo was accosted in the premises of the
Visayan Auto Repair Shop in the act of packing his clothes. Such deportment on the part of the two
accused displays guilty consciences. On
the part of Eliseo Martinado, such a conclusion is even bolstered by the fact
that he escaped from the Kalookan City Jail on 6 August 1988.[50]
Flight of the accused is an indication of his guilt or of a guilty mind.[51]
As to conspiracy, the trial court correctly declared that:
“The conspiracy was shown by the fact that the two accused
were seen buying and drinking softdrinks together with ‘Rolly’ at the store of
the victim and by the fact that they fled together. (People vs. Ramos, 122 SCRA 139). The Prosecution has also established that the same two accused
and ‘Rolly’ helped each other in stabbing the accused (sic), each using a
pointed and bladed instrument in stabbing the same victim to death.”[52]
This Court hereby adopts the aforequoted
exposition. These facts prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused had a common purpose and were united in its
execution. There is conspiracy when two (2) or more persons come to
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[53]
Conspiracy to exist does not require an
agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence; it exists if, at the time of the commission of the
offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution.[54] Direct proof of previous agreement to commit
a crime is not necessary. It may be deduced from the mode and manner
in which the offense was perpetrated,[55] or inferred from acts of the accused
themselves when such point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and
community of interest.[56] Conspiracy having been adequately
established by the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, all the conspirators
— the accused herein — are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent
and character of their respective individual participation for in contemplation
of law, the act of one is the act of all.[57]
As We have earlier declared, however, the finding that robbery
was committed on the occasion of the killing cannot be sustained. Hence, the
accused are liable only for homicide. This Court, nevertheless, appreciates against both accused the generic
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength[58]
which although not alleged in the second amended information, was duly
proven by the prosecution and may therefore be properly taken into
consideration.[59] The victim, Juan Matias, a septuagenarian,
was unarmed at the time he was assaulted; Eliseo Martinado was about 21 years
old[60] while Hermogenes Martinado was only 28 years
old.[61] They both ganged up on the old man
who never had the slightest inkling that the accused, who pretended to be his
customers, would attack him simultaneously with bladed instruments. It is obvious that they took advantage of
their individual and collective strength. The penalty then for the crime of homicide under Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code must be imposed in its maximum period pursuant to the third
paragraph of Article 64 of said Code.
Conformably with the policy of this Court enunciated in several
cases, the indemnity for the death of Juan Matias should be increased to
P50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of Branch 124 of the Regional
Trial Court of Kalookan City in Criminal Case No. C-27858 finding both accused
Eliseo Martinado y Aguillon and Hermogenes Martinado y Aguillon guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide defined and penalized
under paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby modified. As
modified, the two accused are found guilty of the crime of Homicide
under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. In view of the aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strength, and the absence of any mitigating
circumstance to offset it, and applying the provisions of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, Hermogenes Martinado y Aguillon is hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty ranging from Ten (10) years and One (1) day of prision
mayor maximum as minimum to Seventeen (17) years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of reclusion
temporal maximum as maximum.
Accused Eliseo Martinado, however, shall not be entitled to the
benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law as he had escaped from confinement.[62]
Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
Seventeen (17) years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of reclusion temporal maximum.
The indemnity for the death of the deceased Juan Matias is hereby
increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00.
The Decision is AFFIRMED in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.
Gutierrez, Jr., (Chairman), Bidin, Romero, and Melo, JJ., concur.
[1]
Original Records, 282-289; Rollo, 24-31;
[2]
Original Records, 281.
[3]
Id., 235.
[4]
Id., 270-271.
[5]
Id., 293-294.
[6]
Id., 295.
[7]
Original Records, 291.
[8]
Id., 292.
[9]
197 SCRA 79 [1991].
[10]
People vs. Mapalao, supra., at page 88.
[11]
Article 4, Civil Code.
[12]
Article 8, Civil Code.
[13]
People vs. Jabinal, 55 SCRA 607 [1974]; People vs. Santayana, 74 SCRA [1976].
[14]
Rollo, 5.
[15]
Id., 6.
[16]
Id., 7.
[17]
Original Records, 81.
[18]
Id., 135.
[19]
Original Records, 283-285; Rollo, 25-27.
[20]
Id., 286.
[21]
Id., 288.
[22]
Rollo, 2.
[23]
Id., 1.
[24]
Id., 32.
[25]
Id., 46.
[26]
Id., 50.
[27]
Appellant’s Brief, 4; Rollo, 46.
[28]
Id., 7; Id., 46.
[29]
People vs. Espera, 175 SCRA 728
[1989].
[30]
Exhibit “J”.
[31]
People vs. Pacala, 58 SCRA 370 [1974]. See also US vs. Isidro Paddit, 1 Phil. 426 [1902]; People vs.
Barruga, 61 Phil. 318 [1935]; People vs. Cha, 45 Phil. 137 [1923];
People vs. Mones, 58 Phil. 46 [1933].
[32]
TSN, 10 November 1987, 17.
[33]
TSN, 19 November 1987, 9.
[34]
TSN, 19 November 1987, 11.
[35]
Appellant’s Brief, 11; Rollo, 46.
[36]
TSN, 10 November 1987, 21-24.
[37]
Id., 23; Exhibit “A”.
[38]
TSN, 19 November 1987; 7-10; 23-27.
[39]
TSN, 22 December 1987, 4-5; 8.
[40]
People vs. Resayaga, 54 SCRA 350
[1973]; People vs. Pielago, 140 SCRA 418 [1985].
[41]
People vs. Reception, 198 SCRA
670 [1991].
[42]
People vs. Belibet, 199 SCRA 587 [1991]; see also People vs.
Oquiño, 122 SCRA 797 [1983]; People vs. Demeterio, 124 SCRA 914 [1983];
People vs. Manalo, 135 SCRA 84 [1985]; People vs. Dava, 149 SCRA
582 [1987]; People vs. Ranola, 172 SCRA 43 [1989]; People vs.
Pasco, 181 SCRA 233 [1990]; People vs. Bolima, 195 SCRA 614 [1991].
[43]
People vs. Arbolante, 203 SCRA
85 [1991]; see also People vs. Ansing, 196 SCRA 374 [1991].
[44]
Appellant’s Brief, 22; Rollo,
46.
[45]
TSN, 20 November 1987, 20.
[46]
Appellant’s Brief, op. cit., 22; Rollo,
op. cit., 46.
[47]
People vs. Ampo-an, 187 SCRA 173
[1990]; People vs. Bocatcat, Sr., 188 SCRA 175 [1990].
[48]
People vs. Clores, 184 SCRA 638
[1990]; People vs. Arceo, 187 SCRA 265 [1990]; People vs.
Cagalingan, 188 SCRA 313 [1990]; People vs. Tasarra, 192 SCRA 266
[1990]; People vs. Reception, supra.; see also People vs. Beringuel, 192
SCRA 561 [1990].
[49]
People vs. Arceo, supra.; People vs. Lugto, 190
SCRA 754 [1990].
[50]
Rollo, 29.
[51]
U.S. vs. Alegado, 25 Phil. 510
[1913]; U.S. vs. Sarikala, 37 Phil. 486 [1918]; People
vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 69581, 21 May 1992.
[52]
Original Records, 288; Rollo, op. cit., 30.
[53]
Article 8, Revised Penal Code.
[54] People vs. Cadag, 2 SCRA 388 [1961];
People vs. Clarit, 3 SCRA 331 [1961]; People vs. Villanueva, 5
SCRA 672 [1962]; People vs. Tiongson, 12 SCRA 402 [1964].
[55]
People vs. Pudpud, 39 SCRA 618
[1971]; People vs. Mejia, 55 SCRA 453 [1974]; People vs. Ogapay,
66 SCRA 209 [1975].
[56]
People vs. Lunar, 45 SCRA 119
[1972]; People vs. Custodio, 47 SCRA 289 [1972]; People vs.
Cardenas, 56 SCRA 631 [1974].
[57]
People vs. Pareja, 30 SCRA 693
[1969].
[58]
Paragraph 15, Article 14, Revised Penal
Code.
[59]
People vs. Acusar, 82 Phil. 490
[1948]; People vs. Peje, 99 Phil. 1052 [1956]; People vs.
Jovellano, 56 SCRA, 156 [1974].
[60]
He was 23 years old when he testified
on 31 May 1988; TSN, 31 May 1988, 2.
[61]
He was 30 years old when he testified on 5 July 1988; TSN, 5 July 1988, 2.
[62]
Act No. 4103, as amended.