PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELISEO CALEGAN Y MATAVERDE, FLORENTINO FRASDILLA ALIAS “TINONG” AND WILFREDO MAGAT Y SILLIACOS, ACCUSED. ELISEO CALEGAN Y MATA…

ELISEO CALEGAN Y
MATAVERDE, Florentino Frasdilla alias “Tinong,” and
Wilfredo Magat y Silliacos were
charged with robbery with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan
City in Crim. Case No. CC-31000. The
Information alleged that on or about 4 June 1988, in Kalookan City, the three (3) accused, conspiring
together, with intent of gain, by means of force and intimidation, willfully
and feloniously took, robbed and carried away one (1) .38 cal. revolver marked
Squires Bingham with SN INP 1023533 valued at P6,000.00 belonging to one Allan Ibardolaza,
and on the occasion of the robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to take
away the firearm pursuant to their conspiracy, shot and killed Allan Ibardolaza
hitting him at the back of his head which caused his death.^[1]

Of the three (3) accused, only Eliseo Calegan could be tried as
his co-accused Florentino Frasdilla and Wilfredo Magat were never apprehended.

On 21 December 1989, the trial court convicted accused Eliseo
Calegan of robbery with homicide as charged and, noting the absence of any
aggravating or mitigating circumstance, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to return the .38
cal. revolver to Liberty Investigation and Security Agency, and if unable to do
so, to reimburse the agency its acquisition value of P6,000.00. Calegan was likewise directed to indemnify
the heirs of Allan Ibardolaza in the amount of P30,000.00 and to pay the costs. He was declared entitled to full credit of
his preventive imprisonment under Art. 29 of The Revised Penal Code. Meanwhile, the case against Florentino
Frasdilla and Wilfredo Magat was ordered archived for their non­-apprehension.^[2]

Edmundo Legislador, a security guard of the Liberty Investigation
and Security Agency assigned at the Isa Pa Nga Ihaw-Ihaw Balot-Balot
Restaurant, located at the corner of Gen. Tinio Street and EDSA, narrated
that at around seven o’clock in the evening of 4 June 1988, accused-appellant
Eliseo Calegan and two (2) companions, later identified as Florentino Frasdilla
and Wilfredo Magat, entered the restaurant. Earlier, they were seen by Legislador imbibing hard drinks on the stairs
of the nearby Quality Laundry. Legislador had known accused-appellant for quite sometime because the
latter frequented the restaurant.

At about eight o’clock that evening, Magat started creating
trouble by throwing empty beer bottles inside the restaurant. Legislador pacified him. But after about fifteen minutes, Magat again
threw an empty beer bottle at the customers of the adjoining table. He stood up and even introduced himself as a
military man. Placing his
identification card on top of the other table, he challenged its occupants
saying, “Bumunot ka, military ako.” They ignored the
challenge; instead, they befriended him by joining him at his table.

Several minutes later, Magat again threw another empty bottle,
this time at the customers occupying the table near the stage. Legislador again approached him. But as the former tried to pacify the
latter, Frasdilla boxed one of the customers of the table near the stage. Then somebody hit Magat on the head with a
chair, causing him to fall down and lose consciousness. The customers then left the restaurant. Later, accused-appellant and Frasdilla also
left leaving Magat behind.

At around nine-thirty that same evening, Allan Ibardolaza,
supervisor of the Liberty Investigation and Security Agency, arrived. Informed by Legislador of the melee,
Ibardolaza approached Magat, who by then had already regained consciousness. They talked. Then Ibardolaza directed Legislador to call the police.

While Legislador was in front of the restaurant waiting for a bus
to take him to the police station, appellant and Frasdilla arrived on board a
tricycle and entered the restaurant. Upon seeing Ibardolaza, appellant embraced the latter. Then, almost simultaneously, Magat grabbed
Ibardolaza’s gun tucked to his waist, and struck him on the head. Ibardolaza blacked out.

Appellant Calegan, Magat and Frasdilla dragged the unconscious
Ibardolaza out of the restaurant and placed him on the tricycle. With Frasdilla driving, they went towards
Bagong Barrio. Soon after, Legislador
heard a gunshot from the direction of the tricycle.

At the Kalookan Police Headquarters, Legislador reported the
incident to P/Cpl. Alberto David who immediately responded. Together with two (2) other policemen,
P/Cpl. David and Legislador boarded a police
prowl car and proceeded towards the restaurant, retracing the route taken by
the tricycle. But failing to locate the
vehicle, they returned to the restaurant. Legislador called Dra. Celesdenia Palacio, General Manager of the
Liberty Investigation and Security Agency, to inform her of the incident.

Legislador gave his sworn statement to the police on 20 July 1988^[3]
and additional sworn statements on 3 August 1988 and 12 October 1988.^[4]

At eleven o’clock in the evening of 4 June 1988, the Kalookan
Police Force received a report from their sub-station in Bagong Barrio that a
dead man was found sprawled along Waling-Waling Street, Malabon. Immediately, P/Cpl. David and three (3)
other policemen proceeded to the scene. After identifying the body, they brought Ibardolaza to the funeral
parlor for autopsy.

On 5 June 1988, members of the Kalookan Police Force recovered
the tricycle where the victim was loaded shortly before the gunshot was
heard. The tricycle was taken to the
NBI Forensic Chemistry Section for examination of the bloodstains found
thereon. Forensic Chemist Evelyn
Pizarro, found the bloodstains positive for human blood.^[5] It
was Type “O,” the same blood type of the victim.^[6]

On 20 June 1988,
appellant was arrested by operatives of the Kalookan Police Force and, in a
police lineup composed of eight to ten persons, he was singled out and
positively identified by Legislador as one of the three persons who abducted
the victim in the evening of 4 June 1988.

On 5 June 1988, Dr. Ricardo Ibarola, Medico-Legal Officer of the
NBI, conducted an autopsy and reported that the victim sustained abrasions and
contusions on the face which he theorized were caused by the rubbing of the
skin against a rough surface. A fatal
gunshot wound was found to have entered the middle portion of the nape and
exiting at the mouth. He opined that
the gun used in inflicting the fatal injury was a .38 cal. because of the size
of the entry wound and that the gun was fired about half an inch away from the
skin because of powder burns and blackening of the entry wound. The cause of the victim’s death was intra­-cranial
hemorrhage and intra-spinal cord injury, secondary to gunshot wound on the
nape.^[7]

Dra. Celesdenia Palacio, General Manager of the Liberty
Investigation and Security Agency, confirmed that the deceased was a supervisor
of the security agency; that he was issued a licensed .38 cal. Squires Bingham
revolver with Serial No. 1023533 bought at P6,000.00 three (3) years before;
that the gun was never recovered after the incident.

The accused, on the other hand, admitted that he was at the
stairs of the Quality Laundry located at the corner of Gen. Tinio Street and
EDSA at around five o’clock in the afternoon of 4 June 1988. However, he denied that he was drinking at
that time; it was only Magat and Frasdilla who were drinking. Inasmuch as it was raining between six and
seven o’clock in the evening, he ran towards the Isa Pa Nga Ihaw-Ihaw Balot-­Balot Restaurant for shelter and stayed there for
about twenty minutes. He then went
home. He denied having seen Legislador
or the victim that night.

Marina Vanzuela, waitress at the Isa Pa Nga Ihaw-Ihaw Balot-Balot Restaurant, reported for work at six o’clock in
the evening of 4 June 1988. Between
six-thirty and seven in the evening, she saw accused-appellant go to the
comfort room of the restaurant. Afterwards, he talked to her and left at about seven-twenty that same
evening. She admitted that a commotion
ensued inside the restaurant at about nine o’clock in the evening after Magat
started throwing bottles, as a result of which, he was hit on the head by a
customer and fell unconscious. Ibardolaza, the victim, then arrived and requested Magat, who already
regained consciousness, to leave the place. A few moments later, Frasdilla returned with Joe Magat and another
military man aboard a tricycle. Then
these three (3) men helped one another in getting the firearm of the victim and
mauling him until he became unconscious. Wilfredo Magat, Joe Magat, Frasdilla and the unnamed soldier loaded the
victim on a tricycle parked outside the restaurant and left. She emphasized that during the entire
incident, the accused was not there. Neither did she see Legislador when Joe Magat, Frasdilla and the other
soldier arrived and entered the restaurant.

The trial court convicted accused-appellant of robbery with
homicide. The ruling was based on the
principal finding that although there was only one witness to the commission of
the offense, his testimony being credible and positive was sufficient to
convict.

In this appeal, accused-appellant reiterates his arguments before
the trial court assailing the credibility of Legislador, videlicet: (a) Legislador stated
in his testimony on 20 January 1989 that he saw the abduction of the victim
while he was waiting for a bus in front of Isa Pa Nga Ihaw-Ihaw Balot-Balot Restaurant. However, in his sworn statement of 20
July 1988, he stated that he had already boarded a bus when he heard shouts and
saw Wilfredo Magat grabbing the gun of the victim; (b) Legislador also stated
in his testimony that after witnessing the abduction of the victim, he reported
the incident to P/Cpl. David at the Police Headquarters. However, P/Cpl. David denied meeting or
talking to him at the Police Headquarters; and, (c) Legislador was a biased
witness considering that the victim was his supervisor to whom he owed some
degree of loyalty and the owner and manager of the security agency was the aunt
of the victim who employed him.

We find accused-appellant Eliseo Calegan guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged.

The general rule has always been that discrepancies between the
statements of the affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the witness
stand do not necessarily discredit him^[8]
because it is a matter of judicial experience that an affidavit, being taken ex-parte, is almost
always incomplete and often inaccurate.^[9] The
exceptions thereto, which impair the
credibility of witnesses, are: (a) when
the omission in the affidavit refers to a very important detail of the incident
that one relating the incident as an eyewitness would not be expected to fail
to mention,^[10] or (b) when the narration in the sworn
statement substantially contradicts the testimony in court.^[11] The point of inquiry, therefore, is whether
the omission is important or substantial. We quote the relevant portions of the sworn statement
of Legislador dated 20 July 1988:

T     Maari (sic) bang isalaysay mo sa
akin ang buong pangyayari na naganap?

S
    x x x x Pagsakay ko
po sa DM bus, ay nakarinig ako ng hiyawan at ng
(sic) tumingin ako ay nakita ko na inagawan nitong nagpakilalang sundalo ng
baril si Allan at yon (sic) kasama naman niyang isa ay akap-akap si Allan at
sapilitan (sic) isinakay sa isang tricyle na minamaneho nitong kasama naman
nilang isa pa x x x x” (underscoring supplied).

We
note that Legislador did not state that the bus was already moving when he saw
the incident. For comparison, we quote
the pertinent portions of his testimony on 20 January 1989:

Q    In
what particular place in relation to the restaurant were you waiting for the
bus to come by?

A     It was infront (sic) of the
restaurant, sir.

Q    How
far were you from the restaurant?

A     About
five to six meters, sir.

Q    Now,
while waiting for the bus, do you know whether anything else happened inside
the restaurant?

A     No
more, sir. But while I was
waiting for a bus, I saw these Eliseo Calegan and Tinong on board a tricyle, sir.

Q    Who
was driving the motorized tricycle?

A     Florentino
Frasdilla, sir.

Q    And
upon the arrival of Florentino Frasdilla and Eliseo Calegan, what happened?

A     They
went inside the restaurant, sir.

Q    And
what did they do inside the restaurant?

A     Eliseo
Calegan embraced Allan Ibardolaza, sir.

Q    Will
you demonstrate to The Court how Eliseo Calegan embraced Allan Ibardolaza?

A     As
if putting his arms around the body of Allan Ibardolaza, sir.

Q    What
happened after Eliseo Calegan embraced Allan Ibardolaza?

A     Wilfredo
Magat grabbed the gun of Allan Ibardolaza which was tucked on his waist.

Q    And
what did Magat do with that gun?

A     He
hit the head of Allan Ibardolaza with the butt of the gun, sir.

Q    What
happened to Allan Ibardolaza when he was hit on the head by Magat?

A     He
lost consciousness, sir.

Q    What
else did the three persons do after that?

A     They
pulled him and boarded him on the tricycle, sir.

Q    Who
helped each other in pulling Allan Ibardolaza to the tricycle?

A     Wilfredo
Magat, Eliseo Calegan and Florentino Frasdilla, sir.

Q    Were these three persons whom you
named and who pulled or dragged Allan Ibardolaza to the tricycle able to board
Allan Ibardolaza in the tricycle?

A     Yes, sir^[12] (underscoring supplied).

The
claimed inconsistency refers to a trivial matter because whether Legislador was
already on board the bus or while still waiting for a bus, the significant circumstance
common to both the sworn statement and the testimony in court is that he
witnessed the perpetration of the crime. Assuming in gratia
argumenti that the imputed inconsistency is
substantial, the next point of inquiry is whether it was satisfactorily
explained by the witness. This calls to
mind the doctrine that unexplained disparities between a previously executed
sworn statement of a witness and his testimonial declarations regarding the
participation of an accused in a crime erode the veracity of his account
thereon.^[13] In this regard, we find the explanation of
Legislador sufficient:

WITNESS (LEGISLADOR):

A     That was what appeared on the blotter of
the policeman, sir, and when I was investigated by the police they asked me to
narrate to them the story before typing it and after they typed the same they
asked me to sign my statement, sir, which I readily signed without reading the
same.

ATTY. MERCADO:

Q     Why did you not read your statement?

A      Because the policeman was in a hurry,
sir. He just ordered me to affix my
signature because he was in a hurry and
it was then late at night, sir.^[14]

The second alleged
inconsistency, referring to whether it was P/Cpl. David to whom Legislador
reported the incident, is likewise a minor matter. Even the most truthful witnesses can make mistakes, but such
innocent lapses do not necessarily affect their credibility. The testimony of a witness must be
considered and calibrated in its entirety and not by its truncated portions or
isolated passages.^[15]

That the victim was the
supervisor of Legislador and that the aunt of the victim was his employer do
not by themselves render his testimony inadmissible or devoid of probative
value. He is not to be disqualified on
account of bias because there is none. Moreover, as found by the trial court, it has not been shown that he was
ill-motivated in testifying against accused-appellant.^[16]

Appellant refutes further
the testimony of Legislador that he witnessed the abduction of the victim. He intimates that if that were true, Legislador
should have arrested on the spot the perpetrator of so heinous a crime
considering that he at the moment had all the power to do so, being clothed
with authority within the premises of the restaurant he was guarding.^[17] In effect, appellant faults Legislador for
his passivity.

Perhaps Legislador at that moment was less than heroic. But the Court understands his posture
then. As he admitted candidly, he did
not assist the victim when the latter was being mauled because he (Legislador)
was outnumbered by the three (3) malefactors. Obviously, he was overcome by fear.^[18]

At the bottom line of this appeal is the credibility of
Legislador. The trial court having had
the opportunity to observe his demeanor when testifying more than the reviewing
tribunal, was in a better position to gauge his credibility and properly
appreciate the relative weight of the often conflicting evidence for both
parties.^[19]
We defer to the finding of the trial court on the trustworthiness of his
testimony.

Once the prosecution witness is afforded full faith and credit,
the defense version necessarily stands discredited.^[20]
Hence, in the case before us, appellant’s defenses of alibi and denial were
correctly disregarded by the trial court thus –

The allegations of the accused Eliseo Calegan that he left the Isa
Pa Nga Restaurant at about 7:20 p.m. on June 4, 1988 in order to go home and
that he was no longer at the restaurant when the abduction of Ibardolaza
happened, is one of alibi. This is an inherently
weak defense. Alibi, to be believed,
must be supported by clear and convincing evidence (People vs. Cruz, 142 SCRA
576). This clear and convincing
supporting evidence is absent in this case at bar. The accused Eliseo Calegan failed to prove that it was physically
impossible for him to return to the scene of the crime (People vs. Perente, 143
SCRA 56).

It is true that the alibi set up by Eliseo Calegan was corroborated
by Marina Vanzuela. However, the
testimony of Marina is of doubtful credibility. Marina did not inform the police authorities of what she
allegedly witnessed. It is of record
that Caloocan City policemen went to the Isa Pa Nga Restaurant several times to
investigate the case and to arrest the suspects. In fact, Eliseo Calegan was arrested inside said restaurant on
July 20, 1988 (TSN, August 2, 1989, p. 26). Marina showed during the trial two sworn statements which she swore to
before the Investigating Fiscal on October 6, 1988 and on October 19, 1988. These two statements were executed four
months after the incident in question.^[21]

The conspiracy to commit the crime of robbery was conclusively
shown by the coordinated acts of the three (3) accused, as vividly narrated in
the previous testimony of Legislador. On the same occasion, the crime of homicide was committed the details of
which were also supplied by Legislador:

Q    What
did they do after Allan Ibardolaza was loaded in the tricycle?

A     They
brought him towards Gen. Tinio Street, sir.

Q    Who
was driving the motorized vehicle at that time?

A     Tinong, sir.

Q    When
you said Tinong, you are referring to
Florentino Frasdilla?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q    At
that particular time when you saw Allan Ibardolaza being loaded in the
tricycle, where were you?

A     When
they had loaded this Allan Ibardolaza to the tricycle and going towards the
direction of General Tinio Street, that’s the time I was able to board a bus,
sir.

Q    While you were on the bus, did you
hear or see anything?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q    What was that?

A Because at that time, sir, I was on the running
board of the bus and I was able to see to what direction the tricycle went, I
heard a gun report from that tricycle.^[22]

Legislador even confirmed during the cross-examination that he actually
heard a gunshot and not just a firecracker explosion because as a security guard, he had fired a gun.^[23] He heard the gunshot at about ten o’clock^[24] that evening and the body of the victim was
discovered at around ten-thirty to eleven o’clock that same evening.^[25] Thus, the prosecution has clearly
established a direct and intimate connection between the robbery and the
homicide.^[26]

Where conspiracy is shown
to exist, the act of one is the act of all. While it has not been established that it was accused-appellant who
actually shot the victim, conspiracy having been found to exist, he is equally
guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Stated differently, whenever homicide has
been committed as a consequence or on the occasion of the robbery, all those
who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as
principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they
did not actually take part in the homicide.^[27]

WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo
finding accused-appellant Eliseo
Calegan y Mataverde guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide penalized under par. 1 of Art. 294 of
The Revised Penal Code and imposing upon him a prison term of reclusion
perpetua, and directing him to return to the Liberty Investigation and
Security Agency the subject .38 cal. revolver, or if unable to do so, to
reimburse the agency for its acquisition value of P6,000.00, is AFFIRMED. The amount of P30,000.00 awarded by the lower court as indemnity
to the heirs of Allan Ibardolaza is increased to P50,000.00 conformably with
existing jurisprudence.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 8.

^[2]
Decision penned by Judge Rene Victoriano, Regional Trial Court, Kalookan City,
Br. 124; Rollo, pp. 22-31.

^[3]
Exhs. “D” to “D-1.”

^[4]
Exhs. “F” and “G,”
respectively.

^[5]
Exh. “H.”

^[6]
Exh. “I.”

^[7]
Exh. “E.”

^[8]
People v. Dumpe, G.R. Nos. 80110-11, 22 March 1990, 183 SCRA 547.

^[9]
People v. Laredo, G.R. Nos. 81249-51, 14 May 1990, 185 SCRA 383,
citing People v. Pasco, G.R. No. 68520, 22 January 1990; People v. Baybayon,
No. L-49856, 3 April 1990.

^[10]
People v. Anggat, Nos. L-38101-02, 29
June 1981, 105 SCRA 168, 175.

^[11]
People v. Uson, G.R. No. 101313, 5 July 1993.

^[12]
TSN, 20 January 1989, pp. 12-13.

^[13]
People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 68620, 22 July 1986, 143 SCRA 107; People
v. Casim, G.R. No.
93634, 2 September 1992, 213 SCRA 390, cited in People v. Uson,
supra.

^[14]
TSN, 11 May 1989, p. 28.

^[15]
People v. Dabon, G.R. No. 102004, 16
December 1992, 216 SCRA 656.

^[16]
Rollo, p. 65.

^[17]
Rollo, p. 55.

^[18]
TSN, 12 May 1989, p. 91.

^[19]
People v. Mabunga, G.R. No. 96441, 13 November
1992, 215 SCRA 694.

^[20]
People v. Peran, G. R. No. 95259, 26 October 1992, 215 SCRA 152.

^[21]
Rollo, pp. 66-67.

^[22]
TSN, 20 January 1989, pp. 13-14.

^[23]
TSN, 12 May 1989, p. 95.

^[24]
Id., p. 94.

^[25]
TSN, 20 January 1989, p. 19; TSN, 8 June
1989, p. 11.

^[26]
People v. Opero, No. L-48796, 11 June 1981, 105
SCRA 40.

^[27]
People v. Pugal, G.R. No. 90637,
29 October 1992, 215 SCRA 247.