G.R. No. 94530. March 06, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANTE DONATO AND BEN CATUIRAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
NOCON, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Trial Court finding the
accused-appellants, Dante Donato and Ben Catuiran, guilty of the crime of
murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
with all the accessories provided for by law; to pay, jointly and severally,
indemnity to the heirs of the victim Perjulio Batarina the sum of P30,000.00;
and to pay proportionately the
cost.[1]
The Information charging the accused-appellants for the offense
of murder reads:
“The undersigned, Provincial Fiscal, accuses Alberto Bautista
alias Berting, Dante Donato, y Catuiran,
Segundo Catuiran, Ben Catuiran y Bañares
and Lito Mamanao of the crime of Murder, defined and penalized under Article
248, of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
“That on or about March 24, 1980, in the municipality of
Amulung, province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused Alberto Bautista alias Berting, Dante Donato, Segundo
Catuiran, Ben Catuiran and Lito Mamanao together with Carlito Balbuena alias
Andres alias Rene, who is already dead, and several John Does who were not
identified, all armed with guns and bolos, conspiring together and helping one
another with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and with treachery, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, box,
maul, kick and stab one, Perjulio Batarina, inflicting upon him several wounds
on his body which caused his death.
“Contrary to
law.”[2]
Upon arraignment, accused Dante Donato and Ben Catuiran pleaded
not guilty. Accused Segundo Catuiran
jumped bail without being arraigned, while Alberto Bautista is at large.[3]
Accused Lito Mamanao died during the
proceeding, thus the case against him was dismissed.
Evidence presented by
the prosecution showed that at about 9:00 o’clock in the evening of March 24, 1980 in Pacac Pequeño, Amulung, Cagayan,
Dominador Pascual, a resident of the said place was called by Dante
Donato and Alberto Bautista to
come with them. He was brought to a
hill where a certain Andres Balbuena was. The latter then ordered Donato and Bautista to call people to attend a
meeting. Pascual, together with Donato
and Bautista called the people of the barrio to a meeting which was held on a
lot owned by Perjulio
Batarina. They also fetched Perjulio
Batarina and brought him to the
same place.
During the meeting, which was presided by Andres Balbuena,
Marcela Maguddayao, one of the companions of Balbuena, complained that the lot
where the meeting was being held is a portion of her father’s property which
was grabbed by Batarina. Batarina was asked to come forward and was
allegedly mauled by Andres Balbuena, Michael Tong, Alberto Bautista, Segundo
Catuiran, Dante Donato, Ben Catuiran and others in the presence of the people
who attended the meeting.
Batarina fell to the ground, but upon regaining consciousness, he
ran towards his house. He was chased
and upon catching up with him, the group of Balbuena tied his hands at his back
then boxed and hacked him. Batarina was
subsequently brought towards Tana, Amulung, Cagayan, to a place near a creek
south of the house of Alberto Bautista and there Batarina was stabbed many
times by the group of
Balbuena. Ben Catuiran stabbed Batarina with a knife while he was still standing
while Dante Donato hacked him. Andres,
Balbuena then ordered Alberto Bautista to get a crowbar and spade and when the
latter arrived, he hit Batarina’s head with the crowbar and spade. Andres Balbuena then ordered that a grave be
dug to bury Batarina’s body. Batarina’s
remains was found only after nine days when Dominador Pascual pointed to where
the grave was located.
The prosecution presented
three (3) witnesses namely: Dominador
Pascual, Dra. Dulce Baculi, who testified on the result of the autopsy she
conducted on the body of the victim, and Melita Batarina, wife of the victim.
The accused-appellants
interposed the following assignments of errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING
WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE THEORY OF THE PROSECUTION AND IN DISREGARDING THAT
OF THE DEFENSE.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO
PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
THAT THERE EXISTS CONSPIRACY IN THE CASE AT BAR.
IV
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN REJECTING
ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S DEFENSE OF DENIAL AND ALIBI.
The appellants argued that the
prosecution’s evidence is sadly deficient to sustain a verdict of conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.[4]
This contention is devoid of merit.
It has been held that the testimony of only one witness if
credible and positive and if it satisfies the court beyond reasonable doubt is
sufficient to convict.[5] More
so, if corroborated by the other evidence on the record. The defense failed to successfully discredit
or cast doubt upon the veracity and credibility of the prosecution witness
identifying accused-appellants as among those who attacked Perjulio Batarina.
Accused-appellant Dante Donato denied any participation in the killing
of Batarina which he attributed to nine armed men who struck and hit the victim
with the butts of their guns. This
contention, however, was disregarded by the trial court as being contrary to
the autopsy findings, Exhibits “A” and “A-1”. Said the trial court:
“If it were true that Batarina was hit by butts of guns, the
effects would have been marked by swellings, lacerated wounds, contusions and abrasions. The findings of the examining doctor belies
his claim for there were fourteen stab wounds, two cut wounds and
only one lacerated wound with slight fracture of the skull.”[6]
(underscoring supplied)
Not only is Donato’s assertion not
supported by corroborative evidence, the trial court also noticed that while
giving his testimony, Donato lacked candor and was insincere in responding.
Ben Catuiran’s defense is likewise predicated on simple denial
and alibi. That at 9:00 o’clock that
evening of March 24, 1980, he left the meeting and went home to sleep. He claimed that nothing unusual happened at
the meeting. In disregarding his
defense of alibi, the trial court stated as follows:
“The accused’ [sic] defense of denial and alibi are too
fragile to overcome the overwhelming evidence against him.[7] For
the defense of alibi to succeed, the accused must establish physical
impossibility and improper motive of the prosecution witness, which the accused
failed to prove.[8]
According to the accused, Tana is only one and a half kilometers to the meeting
place at Pacac Pegueño. He resided in Tana. It is more likely then that he was with the
group of persons who went to his very barangay where Batarina was killed.[9]
The sole witness to the killing, Dominador Pascual related in his
testimony that Andres Balbuena and his companions, including appellants took
turns in stabbing and hacking Batarina.[10]
“Q. Now
when they arrived in that place what happened next?
A. They
stabbed him for many times.
Q. Who
were those persons who did that?
A. All the company of
Andres Balbuena, sir.
Q. At
the time that they were doing that to him, where was Ben Catuiran?
A. They were all beside
Perfulio Batarina.
Q. How about Dante Donato
where was he at that time?
A. They
were all with the group, sir.
Q. And
what was Ben Catuiran doing when he so [sic] Perfulio Batarina?
A. All
of them are in the group, sir.
Q. What
was he doing?
A. He also used his knife
(immuco), sir.
Q. What do you mean by that
“he also used his knife”?
A. He also used it to stab
Perfulio Batarina.
Q. Whom
did he stab?
A. It
was Perfulio Batarina.
Court:
Q. How
many times did you see Ben Catuiran stabbed Batarina?
A. It
was only once which I saw.
Q. What
part of the body of Batarina?
A. I
don’t know.
Q. What
was the position of Batarina when Ben Catuiran stabbed him?
A. Perfulio
Batarina was standing sir.
Q. What
about Dante Donato, what participation did he make during the stabbing?
A. He
hacked also Perfulio Batarina.
Q. What
part of the body was hacked by Dante Donato?
A. I
only saw that Dante Donato hacked Perfulio Batarina but I don’t know what part
of the body.”
Pascual further testified that he could
not calculate how many persons stabbed Batarina because each and every person
who came near him stabbed him.
The testimony of Pascual was supported by the autopsy findings of
Dra. Baculi, which was reduced to writing and presented as Exhibits
“A” and “A-1”, thus:
“FINDINGS:
1.
Both hands tied with a plastic rope
2.
Chest tied with a plastic rope
3.
State of advanced decomposition
A. Stab wound at the left anterior portion of
the neck about 2 inches long and 1/2 inch deep.
B. Stab wound at the left laternal portion of
the neck about 2 inches long and 1/2 inch deep.
C. Stab
wound at the right hypogastric region with a portion of the large intestine
exposed.
D. Stab wound at the 3rd intercostal space,
right side about 1 1/2 inches long and 1/2 inch deep.
E. Stab wound at the level of the 2nd
intercostal space left side about 2 inches long and 1/2 inch deep.
F.
Stab wound at the level of the 6th intercostal space left side
about 2 inches in length and 1/2 inch deep.
G.
Stab wound 1 inch long just about the level of the umbilicus
1/3 inch deep.
H.
Stab wound anterior portion at the left side, at the level of
the 8th rib about 2 inches long and 1/8 inch deep.
I.
Lacerated wound at the right side frontal region with slight
fracture of the skull about 2 1/2 inches long.
J.
Stab wound at the left of the 4th intercostal space 2 inches
long and 1 1/2 inches deep.
K.
Cut wound about 4 1/2 inches long at the right antero posterior
of the neck cutting the arteries and cartilages.
L.
Cut wound at the right upper forearm antero lateral portion
about 4 1/2 inches long cutting the skin muscle.
M.
Stab wound at the left posterior portion of the scapular 2 1/2
inches long and 1/2 inch deep.
N.
Stab wound at the 3rd vertebral angle 1 1/2 inches and
1/8 inch deep.
O.
Stab wound right posterior portion at the level of the 6th
ribs 2 1/2 inches long and 1 inch deep.
P.
Stab wound at the scapular region right side about 1
1/2 inches long and 1/2 inch deep.
Q.
Stab wound just below the nape of the neck right side
posterior portion about 1/2 inch long & 1/2 inch deep.
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Shock due to massive
hemorrhage caused by multiple stab and cut wounds & slight fracture of the
skull.”
In her testimony, Dra. Baculi said that wounds A, B, C, D, E, F,
G, H, J, K, L, M, N, O, P and Q could have been caused by either a sharp edge or sharp pointed instrument while wound I
by a blunt instrument. Wound C was
fatal because as a consequence thereof, a portion of the large intestine was
exposed. Wound D was likewise fatal
because the upper lobe of the right lung was hit. Wounds A, B, C, and D could have been inflicted frontally while
the victim was either standing, sitting or lying.[11]
Considering the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the
trial court concluded that there was conspiracy
among the assailants:
“Although witness Pascual did not state the number of persons
who inflicted injuries upon the victim, he emphatically declared that Catuiran
stabbed with a knife Batarina and that Donato hacked the victim. In any event, their acts in mauling Batarina
up to the time that they stabbed and hacked him clearly reveal that they are co-conspirators and are thus liable.”[12]
Indeed conspiracy existed in the slaying
of the victim. Appellants were with
Andres Balbuena when they chased the victim towards his house and when they
caught up with him they repeatedly boxed and hacked him. They were also with the group that brought
the victim to a place near a creek in Tana, where they hacked and stabbed
him. There was unity of purpose, a
preconceived plan and concerted action in liquidating the victim.
Conspiracy like any other ingredient of the offense, must be
proved as sufficiently as the crime itself through clear and convincing
evidence, not only by mere conjectures. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to establish a finding of
criminal conspiracy.[13]
There is conspiracy among the perpetrators of the crime where two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
to commit it. This need not be
established by direct evidence
but may be proved through a series of acts done by each of the accused in pursuance of the common unlawful
purpose.[14]
In the case before Us, it can be gleaned from the circumstances
that there was indeed a concerted effort among the assailants to inflict
physical harm on the victim. Batarina
was mauled and hacked simultaneously. It is now immaterial who inflicted the fatal wound. It has been held that when the accused
performed specific acts incidental to the commission of the crime with such
closeness and coordination indicative of a common purpose, conspiracy may be
inferred from those circumstances.[15]
As to the attending circumsance of treachery the trial court correctly
held, thus:
“. . . The evidence furnished by (Dominador) Pascual shows that
Batarina’s hands were tied at his back and while standing he was stabbed with a
knife by Ben Catuiran, Dant(e) Donato hacked him and the group of several
persons led by Andres Balbuena stabbed him several times.”[16]
Batarina’s hands having been tied, there
was no opportunity for him to defend himself from the attacks of his
assailants, who continued assaulting him at no risk to their lives. He was immobilized to render impossible any
retaliation on the part of the deceased.
Nevertheless, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated as it
was not sufficiently established by the prosecution.
In view of the foregoing We affirm the decision of the trial
court finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder. The indemnity to the heirs of
the deceased is raised to P50,000 in view of present jurisprudence.[17]
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed with
the aforesaid modification as to indemnity.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
[1]
Rollo, p. 58.
[2]
Rollo, p. 3.
[3]
Rollo, p. 32.
[4]
Appellants’ Brief, p. 10.
[5]
People v. Salondre, Jr., G.R.
59438, February 28, 1989, 170 SCRA 763.
[6]
Decision, pp. 25-26.
[7]
People v. Paton-og, 115 SCRA 675.
[8]
People v. Alfonso, 153 SCRA 487.
[9]
Decision, pp. 26-27.
[10]
T.S.N., July 3, 1985, pp. 10-11.
[11]
T.S.N., July 20, 1983, pp. 6-11.
[12]
Decision, p. 20.
[13]
People v. Cruz, G.R. 74048, 191 SCRA 377 (1990).
[14]
People v. Bicog, G.R. 76529, 187 SCRA 556 (1990).
[15]
People v. Salcedo, G.R. 78774,
172 SCRA 78 (1989).
[16]
Decision, p. 27.
[17]
People v. Sison, G.R. No. 86455, 189 SCRA 643 (1990).