PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO (PAQUITO) DANICO Y MALLARI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the February 10, 1988 decision^[1]
of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 124,
Caloocan City, in Criminal Case No. C-21004, finding the accused Francisco
Danico y Mallari guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder
qualified by treachery and evident premeditation as defined and penalized in
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, imposing upon him the penalty of THIRTY
(30) YEARS of RECLUSION PERPETUA and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of
Rolando Ledoma y Serrano in the sum of P30,000.00, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. (Original Record, Decision, p. 189, Rollo,
p. 22).

The appellant was charged in an Information filed by Assistant
City Fiscal Romeo C. Victorino of Caloocan City, Metro Manila on August 12,
1983, which reads:

“The undersigned Assistant City Fiscal accuses FRANCISCO
(PAQUITO) DANICO y MALLARI of the crime of MURDER, committed as follows:

“That on or about the 9th day of July, 1983 in Caloocan City,
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused with deliberate intent to kill, with treachery and
evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and stab with a bladed instrument on the vital parts of his
body one Rolando Ledoma y Serrano, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious
physical injuries, which injuries caused the victim’s instantaneous death.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.” (Rollo, p. 6; Original Records, p. 2).

Inasmuch as from the issuance of the warrant of his arrest on
August 25, 1983, the accused remained at-large, an order was issued on June 17,
1986 to place the record of the case in the archives. Eventually, at midnight of March 8, 1987 (July 8, according to
the accused), the accused was arrested (Original Record, p. 8: TSN, December 23, 1987, p. 4). Upon arraignment, the accused Francisco
Danico entered a plea of not guilty to the crime charged (Original Record, p.
14).

At the trial of the case, the prosecution presented the following
witnesses:

Ramon Ledoma – Twenty-three
years old, married, resident of Tambakan St., Maypajo, Caloocan City, and a
brother of the victim Rolando Ledoma. Ramon testified that on July 9, 1983 at about 4:30 in the afternoon he
was at home cooking when the accused Francisco Danico, whom he knew by the name
“Tainga”, arrived. At that
time his brother Rolando had a lady visitor. Danico and Rolando talked and, after a while, Danico invited Rolando to
accompany the lady visitor to the corner of Maypajo. After his brother and the accused had left together with the lady
visitor, he (witness) went to the sari-sari store of Mang Eddie, their
neighbor, to buy santol. Amy, another
neighbor, came running and told him that his brother was being stabbed by
“Boy Tainga”. Upon hearing
that information, he ran towards San Marcos St. and saw that “Tainga”
was stabbing his brother. “Tainga” was stooping and making several thrusts on his
brother who was already lying down on the ground with his face upward. “Tainga” and his brother were near
each other (“magkadikit).

Ramon saw Danico stab his brother once with a
“balisong”. His brother could
not fight back because he was already lying on the ground unconscious.

He also claimed that when he saw Danico stabbing his brother, he
picked up a stone and threw it at Danico but the latter was not hit. Danico ran towards the direction of their
house in Isla San Juan. Immediately
after Danico had run away, he approached his brother and at the same time
shouted for help. The people around did
not help him anymore because they told him that his brother was already
dead. He left his brother and called
his sister on the phone. When his
sister arrived, the policemen who were there got the body of his brother and
brought him to Funeraria Popular.

Ramon further testified that before July 9, 1983 or five days
prior to the stabbing incident, his brother and Danico had a misunderstanding
because one of the “barkada” of the accused had vexed the wife of his
brother Rolando. Danico went to their
house to ask for a “despensa” from his brother. On that very same day, Danico bought a
rooster from the victim Rolando. The
rooster, without the knowledge of Danico, had been stolen by Jun and Dodong,
the “barkada” of his brother Rolando. Two days after, “Tainga” hang around in their
place. He (witness) did not know that
Danico had some ill feelings against his brother Rolando but it turned out that
the rooster Danico had bought from Rolando belonged to a policeman. When Danico asked his brother who was the
true owner of the rooster that he bought, the latter answered that Dodong and
Jun merely requested him to hide it (TSN, Hearing of September 18, 1987, pp.
2-10).

P/Sgt. Manuel Buenaobra – Connected with the
Station Investigation Division of the Caloocan Police Station; Sgt. Buenaobra
declared that on July 9, 1983 he investigated the victim’s mother, Mrs. Anita
Serrano Vda. de Ledoma, and the brother, Ramon Ledoma. In the course of his investigation he found
out that the case was murder because of the presence of treachery. He also learned that the culprit was one by
the name of Paquito Danico. On July 21,
1983, he referred the case to the fiscal’s office.

He further testified that on July 9, 1983 at around 6:00 o’clock
in the afternoon, upon the instruction of the Chief of Investigation of
Caloocan City, he and the station photographer went to the scene of the
crime. When they arrived there he saw a
member of the mobile division dispersing the people milling around the dead
body. He saw the victim lying on the
ground. They called up the funeral
parlor which later took the victim to the NBI for autopsy. Meanwhile, the photographer took pictures of
the deceased (TSN, Hearing of October 9, 1987, pp. 23-28).

On cross-examination, he testified that it was their practice or
standard procedure that the statement of the witnesses would only be taken down
after the accused had been apprehended although spot report on the case would
be made immediately. The statement he
took from Ramon Ledoma was in the form of question and answer while the
statement of Mrs. Anita Serrano Vda. Ledoma was in the form of an affidavit, or
a sort of narration because there was nothing important to ask and she was not
present at the time of the incident. She merely represented the victim in the prosecution of the case (TSN,
Ibid, pp. 29-30).

Dr. Albert Reyes – Medical Officer
of the NBI, Manila, he stated that he conducted the post-mortem examination on
the cadaver of one Rolando Ledoma y Serrano at the morgue of Funeraria Popular
in Rizal Avenue, Manila at 3:00 o’clock in the morning of July 10, 1983. He reported on the following findings:

“Pallor, generalized.

“Abrasions, back, right side, 5.0 x 4.0 cm.; end left side,
4.0 x 3.0 cm.

“Wounds,
incised; shoulder, right, 8.0 cm.; palm, left hand, 3.0 cm., index-finger,
left, palmar aspect, 1.0 cm., ring finger, left, palmar aspect, 1.0 cm.

“Wounds, stab
elliptical in shapes, edges clean cut, with sizes ranging from 9.0 cm. to 3.5
cm., all having a sharp and an opposite contused extremities, sixteen (16) in
number, two (2) located at the neck, left side, lateral aspect, seven (7) at
the anterior chest wall, three (3) at the right side, four (4) at the right
side, four (4) at the anterior abdominal wall, one (1) at the right side, and
three (3) at the left side, three (3) at the back, one (1) at the left side,
and two (2) at the right side, involving the skin and underlying soft tissues,
the left ventricle of the heart, the upper lobe of the left lung and the upper
and lower lobes of the right lung, the right lobe of the liver, the left kidney
and the small intestines, with approximate depths varying from 4.5 cm. to 12.0
cm.

“Hemopericardium, about 80 c.c.

“Hemothorax, right, about 800 c.c., and left, about 900 c.c.

“Hemoperitoneum, about 500 c.c.

“Heart Chambers, practically empty.

“Strain and other visceral organs, pale.

“Stomach, approximately half-filled with moderately digested
rice and other food particles.

“CAUSE OF DEATH: Hemorrhage, severe, secondary to multiple
stab wounds.” (Original Exhibits, p. 14).

During the examination, he found that of the sixteen stab wounds,
five were fatal and they involved the heart, the lungs, the liver and the
intestines.

The fatal wounds on the front side of the body were stab wound
No. IX which penetrated and perforated the heart; stab wound No. IV which
perforated the upper lobe of the right lung and stab wound No. XIII which cut
through the small intestine. The fatal
two stab wounds at the back were stab wound No. XIV which penetrated and perforated
the lower lobe of the right lung and stab wound No. XVI which perforated the
kidney.

The instrument used in inflicting these stab wounds was a
sharp-pointed, single-bladed instrument or weapon. The characteristics of the stab wounds were the same so that it
was possible that only one weapon was used. However, because of the number of wounds, he could not rule out the
possibility that more than one weapon was used. If more than one weapon was used, they should all have the same
characteristics: single-bladed and
sharp-pointed. The abrasions on the
back, right and left sides of the body showed that they were produced either by
the victim’s falling down or he was hit at the back. The cause of death was internal hemorrhage, severe, secondary to
multiple stab wounds (TSN, Hearing of December 9, 1987, pp. 43).

Anita Serrano Vda. de Ledoma –
The mother of the victim. She testified
only on the civil aspect of the case. She came to know of the death of her son when she was told about it
after doing her laundry work on July 9, 1983. She spent the total amount of P12,000.00 for her son’s wake, funeral and
other burial expenses (TSN, Hearing of November 9, 1987, pp. 48-50).

Aileen Orlins – An ambulant peddler, residing at
San Marcos St. She testified that on
July 9, 1983, at about 4:30 to 5:00 in the afternoon, she was in the market at
Maypajo buying things. On her way home,
and while passing through Isla San Juan, she witnessed an unusual incident. She saw Francisco Danico stabbing Rolando
Ledoma at the corner of San Marcos St. and Isla San Juan in Caloocan City. She was approximately four (4) meters away
from them. She saw Danico stab Rolando
three times, on the right back portion, on the right midrib and on the left
portion below the left “bosom”. The victim was standing when the accused stabbed him from behind. The victim was trying to resist the stabs of
the accused but the latter managed to stab Rolando and the latter fell down
(“bumulagta”). She did not
see anymore what happened next because she ran out of the street and proceeded
home.

She knew the victim because he was her neighbor at San Marcos
St. Her house was only four (4) houses
away from the deceased who also knew the accused, as the latter usually went to
the house of the victim. Francisco
Danico was well-known in their place as “Paquito” or
“Tainga.”

She also testified that she was not able to report the matter to
the police because she was peddling and she had no time to do it. She was requested by the heirs of the
deceased to testify in order that she could tell the truth about the incident
that she had witnessed (TSN, Hearing of November 13, 1987, pp. 52-57).

On cross-examination, she testified that she did not relate the
incident to anyone except to her mother because she was afraid of Tainga’s
vengeance but she admitted that when she narrated what she witnessed to her
mother, some of their neighbors were present. (Ibid., pp. 60-61).

The theory of the defense consists of denial and alibi. The defendant himself was the only witness.

Francisco Danico, who was engaged in the selling of
souvenir items, testified that on July 9, 1983 at about 4:30 in the afternoon,
he was in Binakayan, Cavite, peddling. He was there from 9:00 o’clock in the morning to 6:00 o’clock in the
afternoon. He arrived home at 8:00
o’clock in the evening.

He claimed that his real name is Francisco Danico and not Paquito
Danico, the name appearing in the information originally filed in this
case. To prove his identity as
Francisco Danico he submitted his birth certificate, marriage contract, voter’s
affidavit, residence certificates for the years 1984-85 and a certification
purportedly issued by the barangay captain of Isla San Juan. In all these documents his name appeared as
“Francisco Danico y Mallari”.

He denied that he was the same person answering by the name of
“Paquito Danico y Mallari” in the warrant of arrest issued by Judge
Baylen on August 25, 1983 and neither was he the same “Paquito Danico y
Mallari” mentioned in the return of the warrant made by the City Warden of
Caloocan City.

He further claimed that he came to know about this case in the
early morning of July 8, 1987, on his way home, after buying “balut”
eggs at the corner of J.P. Rizal St. and Maypajo, Caloocan City when two
policemen apprehended him and forcibly boarded him on a vehicle. He denied having bought any rooster from the
deceased Rolando Ledoma, adding that he knew Ledoma by face only. Sometime in 1982, when he played basketball
at Tambakan, Ledoma was one of the spectators. The reason why Ramon Ledoma testified against him was because one of his
“barkada” boxed the wife of the victim, Rolando Ledoma (TSN, Hearing
of December 23, 1987, pp. 64-70).

On February 10, 1988, the trial court rendered its decision, the
decretal portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, this Court finds the herein accused FRANCISCO
DANICO y MALLARI, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER
qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, as defined and penalized in
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced by this Court to
THIRTY (30) YEARS of Reclusion Perpetua; and to indemnify the
heirs of the deceased in the sum of P30,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency.

“With costs against
the accused.

“After promulgation, let copy of this Decision be furnished
the Hon. Supreme Court of the Philippines, thru the Hon. Court of
Administrator, Padre Faura, Manila.

“SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, pp. 22-23, Original Record, pp.
189-190).

Hence this appeal with the accused-appellant raising the
following assignments of error:

I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF RAMON
LEDOMA THAT HE ACTUALLY SAW THE APPELLANT STABBING HIS BROTHER, IS INHERENTLY
IMPROBABLE.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE DELAY OF RAMON LEDOMA
IN GIVING HIS STATEMENT CAST SERIOUS DOUBT AS TO HIS MOTIVE.

III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF AILEEN
ORLINS DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE ADMITTED THAT SHE WAS MERELY REQUESTED BY THE
MOTHER OF THE VICTIM TO TESTIFY AFTER A CERTAIN AMELIA DELA CRUZ REFUSED TO
TESTIFY.

IV

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PROSECUTION
SUPPRESSED THE SO-CALLED ‘SPOT REPORT’ AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VICTIM AND
THAT THERE ARISES A PRESUMPTION THAT IF THESE WERE PRESENTED, THEY WILL BE
ADVERSE TO THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

V

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE CRIME COMMITTED WAS MURDER.

VI

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI
SET UP BY THE APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS WEAK,
DOUBTFUL, UNCONVINCING, UNRELIABLE AND UNSATISFACTORY.

Danico, in praying for a reversal of the trial court’s decision,
ascribes several infirmities in the evidence of the prosecution, one of which
is the unreability of Ramon Ledoma’s and Aileen Orlins’ testimonies. He avers that Aileen Orlins was just
requested by the mother of the victim to testify only after a certain Amelia
dela Cruz, a supposed witness for the prosecution, had refused to testify
despite her having been subpoenaed. Orlins allegedly did not report to the police what she had narrated in
court as in fact, it was only in court that she revealed to the authorities for
the first time what she claimed she had witnessed. The appellant contends that her being merely a pinch-hitter for
another witness should have cautioned the trial court to receive her testimony
with care. On the other hand, the appellant
discredits. Ramon Ledoma’s, testimony,
as his claim that he saw Danico stabbing his brother who was then already
slumped on the ground is not supported by evidence. The appellant contends that the record will reveal that when
Ramon arrived at the scene of the incident, there were already many persons
milling around and he had to push his way through in order to get near his
brother.

A scrutiny of the records, however, clearly belies all these
allegations. Firstly, Orlins was not a
substitute witness although she was initially reluctant to testify for fear of
reprisal. Orlins’ non?disclosure
of the incident to the police immediately after its occurrence is not against
the ordinary course of things. It is
entirely human and quite understandable and should not detract from her
testimonial credit (People v. Bustarde, 182 SCRA 554 [1990]). Witnessing a crime is an unusual and no less
frightening experience which elicits different reactions from the witnesses. There is no standard form of behavior when
one is confronted with a shocking incident (People v. Radomes, 141, SCRA 548
[1986]). Thus, it is not uncommon for a
witness to a crime to show some reluctance about getting involved in a criminal
case, as in fact the natural reticence of most people to get involved is of
judicial notice (People v. Caraig, G.R. No. 91162, October 3, 1991). This is especially true when townmates are
involved in the commission of a crime. Witnesses are usually afraid for they might provoke reprisals from the
accused (People v. Sabellano, 198 SCRA 196; 1991).

The initial silence then of Orlins, will not detract from the
credibility of her testimony. No evil
motive has been proved against her that would prompt her to falsely testify
against appellant (People v. Noguerras, 181 SCRA 19; 1990) nor was there any
reason for Orlins to incriminate appellant other than to tell the truth as she
had witnessed it (People v. Ballinas, G.R. No. 93300, October 4, 1991).

Orlins positively identified the appellant as the one who stabbed
the victim. This indubitably proved
that appellant was the same person charged in the information. That he was identified therein by a
different name is of no moment. Orlin’s
testimony that appellant was well-known in their place as Paquito or Tainga was
unrebutted by the defense. Thus, even
if Ramon Ledoma is to be disbelieved in his testimony that he saw the accused
stab his brother, it is still very clear that appellant was positively
identified by witness Orlins. Her sole
testimony, being credible and positive, and as it satisfied the court as to the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient to convict (People
v. Javier, 182 SCRA 830 [1990]).

The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the prosecution
witnesses’ positive identification and the absence of persuasive evidence
showing the physical impossibility of the appellant’s being at the scene of the
crime at the time of its commission (People v. Soriano, 196 SCRA 123 [1991];
People v. Carcedo, 198 SCRA 503 [1991]). The said defense being inherently weak, inconclusive and unreliable
(People v. Dela Cruz, 158 SCRA 537 [1988]), there is a need for the most
convincing evidence for it to be believed (People v. Batac, 157 SCRA 508;
1988). In the case at bar, the
appellant tried to prove that when the crime was committed, he was in
Binakayan, Cavite selling souvenir items. His testimony, however, is self-serving as it is entirely
uncorroborated. Indeed, it is not
enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed
but, as earlier stated, he must demonstrate that he could not have been in
Caloocan City when the crime was committed.

In view of the positive identification of the accused, proof of
the motive for the killing becomes entirely irrelevant, for, as consistently
held by the Court, such is essential only when there is doubt as to the
identity of the culprit (People v. Hassan, 157 SCRA 261 [1988]) The absence of
proof of motive does not preclude conviction when the crime and the
participation of the accused therein are definitely established (People v.
Traya, 147 SCRA 381 [1987]).

The contention of the appellant that the prosecution suppressed
the so-called ‘spot report’ and the photographs of the victim, is based on the
opinion of witness Dr. Alberto Reyes, supervising medical officer of the NBI,
that there could be more than one instrument or weapon used and that it was
also possible that there were more than one assailant. This contention is untenable. In his brief, the Solicitor General
correctly stated that the prosecution was under no obligation to submit either
the “spot report” or photographs of the victim. If the appellant thought that the “spot
report” and photographs could serve his cause, there was nothing to
prevent him from requiring their production in court so that he could offer
them as his own evidence. No such
effort was taken. Nonetheless, even if
such evidence is presented, the same would at best be corroborative or
cumulative (People v. Andiza, 164 SCRA 642 [1988]; People v. Maghanoy, 180 SCRA
111 [1989]; People v. Vocente, 188 SCRA 100 [1990]). Hence, its non-presentation would not have affected the
prosecution’s theory.

Treachery has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution witness Aileen Orlins testified
that the accused was behind the victim when the former stabbed the latter. This testimony is consistent with the
findings of Dr. Alberto Reyes that there were three (3) stab wounds at the back
of the deceased, two of which were both fatal, perforating as they did the
lower lobe of the right lung and the kidney. The deceased was totally unaware and unprepared when he was stabbed at
the back. He could not have anticipated
the murderous designs of the accused because they were even together when they
left his house. The appellant’s
suggestion that he and the deceased should accompany the latter’s lady visitor
to where she would take a ride was a deceitful scheme on the part of the
accused to assure the attack on his unsuspecting prey. There is treachery when the offender adopts
means, methods or forms in the execution of the felony which insures its
commission without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended
party might take (People v. Ramil Balatucan and three (3) John Does, G.R. No.
93805-06, February 7, 1992).

The killing was also perpetrated with evident premeditation. Having known from its policeman-owner that
the rooster he had bought from Rolando Ledoma was a stolen one, appellant
frequented the latter’s house. Undoubtedly, murder was in his heart. He was just biding for time and looking for a place to execute it. And he did this in the afternoon of July 9,
1983, at the corner of San Marcos and Isla San Juan, Maypajo, Caloocan City. The sixteen (16) stab wounds found on the
different parts of the body of the deceased are signs of the rage that the
appellant nurtured and of his planned and premeditated determination to finish
off the latter.

The Court has consistently held that for evident premeditation to
be appreciated against an accused, the following requisites must be
established: (1) the time when the
offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that
the offender had clung to his determination; and (3) the lapse of an interval
of time between determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof,
sufficient to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequences of his act
(supra). These requisites have been
proven in the instant case.

Since both treachery and evident premeditation have been proven
beyond reasonable doubt, only one of them should be regarded as qualifying and
the other circumstance should be considered as generic aggravating (Aquino, The
Revised Penal Code, Vol. II, 1987 ed., p. 532 citing People v. Labai, 17 Phil.
240 [1910]). Under Art. 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, murder is punishable by the penalty of reclusion temporal
in its maximum period to death. There
being one generic aggravating circumstance, the correct penalty should be death
(Art. 64(3), Revised Penal Code) but in view of the abolition of the death
penalty by the 1987 Constitution, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity should be increased from
P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 in conformity with recent jurisprudence (People v.
Jose Buligon, Jose Nicolas, et al., G.R. No. 94338, February 4, 1992).

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is
AFFIRMED subject to the modification that the civil indemnity is increased to
P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

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

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman),J., subject
to my dissent in People v. Muñoz, ebat., G.R. Nos. L-38968-70, Feb 9, 1980, 170
SCRA 107

^[1]
Penned by Judge Cancio C. Garcia