G.R. No. 95758. August 02, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REYNALDO RETUTA AND CRESENCIO RETUTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
The brothers REYNALDO RETUTA and CRESENCIO RETUTA were charged
with murder in Crim. Case No. U-4692 before the Regional Trial Court of
Urdaneta, Pangasinan. The Information
alleged that in the evening of 19 June 1986, in Barangay Babasit, Manaoag,
Pangasinan, the accused armed with a sharp bladed weapon, conspiring with one
another, with deliberate intent to kill, and with treachery and evident
premeditation, feloniously boxed, slashed and wounded one Rufo T. Naoe, Sr.,
which caused his death. Specifically,
the wounds allegedly inflicted were a clean-cut wound, 2.5 inches deep, 4.5
inches long, trajecting the jugular vessel, trachea, esophagus at the level of the Adam’s apple, anterior
aspect of the neck, and another clean-cut wound, 2.5 centimeters deep, 3 inches
long, and 1 inch above the sternum.[1]
After trial, the court a quo convicted Reynaldo Retuta of
murder and sentenced him to “life imprisonment” and to indemnify the
heirs of the victim jointly and severally with Cresencio Retuta in the amount
of P30,000.00 plus moral damages of P150,000.00. Cresencio Retuta was convicted as an accomplice and, applying
Art. 52 of The Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, was
imposed a prison term of seven (7) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision
mayor as minimum to thirteen (13) years, one (1) month and ten (10) days of
reclusion temporal as maximum, with both accused to pay the costs.[2]
Maintaining their innocence, both accused interpose the present
appeal.
Meanwhile, the Provincial Warden of Pangasinan wrote the Court
that accused Cresencio Retuta was not committed to the provincial jail. Consequently, on 11 October 1993, the Court
ordered his surety to surrender him to the trial court within ten (10) days
from notice.[3]
But his surety failed to comply with the order so that on 14 March 1994 the
Court dismissed the appeal of Cresencio for abandonment pursuant to Sec. 8,
Rule 124 of the Rules of Court.[4]
Hence, only the appeal of Reynaldo stands.
The evidence for the prosecution tends to establish that in the
evening of 19 June 1986, victim Rufo Naoe, Sr., attended a despedida tendered
by one Fermin Mejia at the latter’s residence along the Provincial Road of
Babasit. At around nine-thirty that
evening, while Rufo was on his way home, appellant Reynaldo Retuta accosted and
boxed him. Rufo who was drunk fell
down. Unable to rise, Rufo was pulled
by appellant to the dark side of the feeder road. The incident was witnessed by Josie Calderon, Nora Enriquez,
Efren Punay and accused Cresencio who were then under a kamias tree about ten
(10) meters away from the victim and appellant. Calderon and Enriquez, intending to help the victim and pacify
appellant, tried to follow but were held back by Cresencio who told them not to
intervene as appellant knew what he was doing; instead, Cresencio ordered them
and Punay to go home, with a warning that something would happen to whoever
would divulge the incident. Calderon
and Punay heard the victim moan in pain, as if gasping for breath.
Dr. Arnulfo Bacorro, Municipal Health Officer of Manaoag,
autopsied the body of Rufo and found the injuries now mentioned in the
Information.[5]
According to Dr. Bacorro, with the first wound inflicted on the victim, he
could have survived only from 5 to 10 seconds, and that without this first
wound, he could have lived. The
examining physician further said that the weapon used in the first wound could
be a sharp thin object, not a balisong,
but could be a small bolo or a razor, and that both wounds could
have been inflicted by one person with the same instrument.
The defense admits that on 19 June 1986, at six o’clock in the
evening, appellant and others were at the party in the house of Fermin Mejia
where they stayed for one hour. When
they left, Rufo was still there but they never talked with him; neither did
they have any misunderstanding. They
stopped under the mango tree and talked with Punay, Jaime Enriquez, Willy
Enriquez, Sonny de Guzman and Eddie Solomon for about fifteen (15)
minutes. When they arrived home, they
watched television with their parents and went to sleep at eight o’clock.
Reginaldo Delfin, witness for the defense, said that on 19 June
1986, at around seven-thirty in the evening, he saw Cresencio and Reynaldo pass
by and proceeding towards their house less than twenty (20) meters away from
his.
Another witness, Nieves Enriquez, testified that on 19 June 1986,
at around seven-thirty to eight o’clock in the evening, she visited her balae
“Tuding” Retuta and “Insiong” Retuta in Babasit. She watched television with them and the
accused who arrived at seven-thirty that night. Thirty minutes later, the accused went inside their room and
slept.
Appellant Reynaldo Retuta contends that the trial court erred in
appreciating the circumstantial evidence against him, albeit shaky and crude;
and, in disregarding his alibi. He
asserts that various inconsistencies and incredible allegations of the
prosecution witnesses regarding the killing of Rufo exist so that his
conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence is totally unwarranted. In particular, he mentions the following
which we find pertinent to resolve: Josie Calderon did not recognize the person who passed by them and boxed
the victim since the identity of that person was only told to her by Cresencio;
the claim of Punay that he saw appellant strike the victim is unbelievable
because, according to Calderon, Punay and his group arrived only when the
victim was already moaning after having been stabbed; Calderon and Punay did
not do anything when the victim was groaning, not even bothering to relate the
incident to anyone; and, there was no link between the boxing and the actual
killing of the victim, thus giving rise to the inference that others could have
killed him as there were other persons before or during the incident. Appellant further argues that although alibi
is the weakest of defenses, the facts in support thereof have all been proved
and never rebutted by the prosecution.
The Court believes otherwise and affirms the conviction of
appellant.
Josie Calderon knew both Reynaldo and Cresencio Retuta as they
were also from Babasit like her.[6] She
was able to recognize Reynaldo as the person who punched and dragged Rufo
toward the side of the feeder road because there was an electric light[7]
and because he was the only one who passed by the place[8] and
she was ten (10) meters away from them.[9]
Vividly she recalled:
Q: In
the month of . . . (on) June 19, 1986, at around 9:30 o’clock in the evening,
do you remember if you ever saw Rufo Naoe, Sr.?
A: Yes
sir, because we are (sic) at the Camias tree and I saw him pass by.
Q: Where
did you see him?
A: At
the feeder road, sir.
x x x x
Q: After
Rufo Naoe passed by, can you tell the Court if you know Reynaldo Retuta?
x x x x
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x x
Q: Why
do you know that the man who passed by was Reynaldo Retuta?
A: Because
I asked Cresencio who is (sic) he
and he answered “Nante,” sir.
Q: Are
you telling the Court the name “Nante” referred to Reynaldo Retuta?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: After
Reynaldo Retuta passed by x x x half naked, what happened?
A: When
Nante passed by, he went towards a dark place and after a while Rufo Naoe
passed by and that is (sic) when the former box(ed) the latter, sir.
Q: Who
box(ed) Rufo?
A: Reynaldo,
sir.
Q: Why
do you say that Reynaldo box(ed) Rufo?
A: I
saw him, sir.
x x x x
Q: After
Reynaldo box(ed) Rufo, what happened?
A: When
Reynaldo box(ed) Naoe, he fell down and
Naoe was trying to rise but he was unable to rise and that is (was) when
Reynaldo pulled him there somewhere in the feeder road, sir.
Q: To
what place . . . where Reynaldo pulled Naoe?
A: Just
beside the feeder road sir, the witness demonstrating with her left hand beside
the feeder road which is approximately 1/2 meters (sic) away.
x x x x
Q: How
about you, what did you do when you saw Rufo Naoe box(ed) by Reynaldo?
A: Me
and Nora Enriquez were able to go to where Naoe was but Cresencio took hold of
my hands and refrain (sic) us from going there, sir.
Court:
Q: Did
he also take the hands of Nora Enriquez?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: So
you mean to say that Cresencio Retuta hold (sic) your hand and Nora?
A: Yes,
sir.
Atty. Madronio:
Q: Aside
from Cresencio holding your hand and the hand of Nora Enriquez, what did you
do, if any?
A: He
simply told us not to go there where the two were because “Nante”
knows what he is doing.
Q: Will
you please tell us why you attempted to go to the place where Reynaldo and Rufo
were?
A: Because
we wanted to help Naoe and at the same time pacify Reynaldo, sir.
Q: When
Rufo Naoe was pulled to the dark place, what happen(ed) if you know?
A: I
heard Naoe groaning in pain, sir.
Q: Why
do you know that the person groaning is (was) Naoe?
x x x x
A: Because
I am familiar with his voice and besides he was our neighbor, sir.
Q: You
said that Rufo Naoe was your neighbor, how long have you been the neighbor of
Rufo Naoe?
A: For
five (5) years, sir.[10]
Calderon added during the
cross-examination that she heard the voice of the victim as if he was losing
his breath or at the point of death.[11]
Likewise, Punay knew the brothers Reynaldo and Cresencio Retuta.[12]
As a matter of fact, they had a drinking spree in the house of Fermin Mejia
from six to eight o’clock in the evening of 19 June 1986, after which, they
went under a mango tree where appellant proposed that they accost Rufo but
Punay and Cresencio remained silent.[13]
Punay was informed by appellant that he had an old grudge against Rufo.[14]
Punay corroborated on material points the previously quoted testimony of
Calderon, to wit: (a) he saw appellant
manhandling Rufo;[15] (b)
the victim fell to the ground;[16] (c)
he heard the groaning or moaning voice of Rufo as if gasping for life or at the
throes of death;[17]
and, (d) he was familiar with Rufo’s voice because he had known the victim for
a long time.[18]
As regards the allegations of appellant that Calderon did not
recognize the person who passed by them and boxed the victim, and that there
was no link between the boxing and actual killing thus inferring that somebody
else killed the victim, the prosecution witnesses have clearly explained these
during the direct and cross-examinations –
(TO WITNESS CALDERON):
Q: And
you also stated that you asked Cresencio Retuta who was that person who passed
by at that precise (time) and he said it was Reynaldo Retuta?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: So,
you are not then sure of the identity of Reynaldo Retuta because you asked the
brother who is that person who passed by, is that correct?
A: I
was sure that it was Reynaldo Retuta who passed by but I wanted to ascertain by
(sic) Cresencio himself.[19]
x x x x
Q: At
9:30 o’clock in the evening is already dark, how were you able to recognize
Reynaldo Retuta box Rufo Naoe?
A: Because
he was the only one who passed by towards the feeder road, I’m sure he was he.[20]
x x x x
Q: At
the time you saw Reynaldo Retuta box Rufo Naoe and the pulling him towards the
dark place, have you seen any other person?
A: None,
sir.[21]
x x x x
Q: From
the time you saw Reynaldo Retuta by the side of the road up to the time Rufo
Naoe arrived at the place where Reynaldo Retuta was, did you see any other
person pass by?
A: None,
sir.[22]
There may be an inconsistency between the testimony of Josie
Calderon that it was after the stabbing incident when Punay and his two (2)
companions arrived,[23] and
the testimony of Punay that he was already sitting under the kamias tree before
the victim passed by.[24]
However, we agree with the observation of the Solicitor General that –
x x x x the alleged inconsistency
as to when Efren Punay and his group arrived at the Kamias tree refers to a
minor or collateral matter which does not impair the credibility of prosecution
witnesses Josie Calderon and Efren Punay regarding the act of accosting, boxing
and dragging of the victim by appellant Reynaldo. The discrepancy signifies that the two witnesses did not
deliberately pervert the truth in their narrations. The discordance in their testimonies on minor matters heightens
their credibility and shows that their testimonies were not coached nor
rehearsed (People vs. Doria, 55 SCRA 425). As this Honorable Court held in People vs. Agudu, 137 SCRA 516, to wit:
‘However, the variance, if any, is on a minor detail which would
not destroy the effectiveness of their testimony. We cannot expect absolute uniformity in every detail because
witnesses react differently to what they see and hear, depending upon their
situation and state of mind. Complete uniformity in details is a badge of untruthfulness. The slight contradictions, on the other
hand, strengthen the sincerity of the testimony of a witness’ (emphasis
supplied).
Thus, far from evidence of falsehood, the minor inconsistency
between the testimony of Josie Calderon and Efren Punay could justifiably be
regarded as a demonstration of their good faith (People v. Cielo, 132 SCRA 117).[25]
Accused-appellant criticizes Calderon and Punay for not lifting a
finger while the victim was moaning in the dark and not disclosing the incident
to anyone. We find their behavior understandable
because it should be remembered that accused Cresencio threatened them that
something would happen to the person who would divulge the incident.[26]
Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, invoking People v. Coronado, 145 SCRA 250:
x x x x The failure
of a witness to report at once to the police authorities the crime they had
witnessed should not be taken against them. It is not uncommon for a witness to a crime to show some reluctance about
getting involved in a criminal case. The natural reticence of most people to get involved in a criminal case is of judicial notice (People vs. Pacabes, 137 SCRA 158).[27]
We thus sustain the trial court on the credibility of the two
prosecution witnesses. It is a
fundamental legal aphorism that the conclusions of the trial judge, on the
credibility of witnesses,
command great respect and consideration, especially when said conclusions are
supported by the evidence on record, and will not ordinarily be disturbed or
interfered with. The only exception to
the rule is when the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts and
circumstances of weight and influence which, if considered, will materially
alter the result of the case.[28] The
present case falls under the rule.
It should also be noted that no evidence whatsoever was adduced
to show that the witnesses for the prosecution had ulterior motives to testify
falsely against appellant or mendaciously implicate him if indeed he was not
involved in the killing.[29]
Moreover, the circumstances established constitute an unbroken chain leading to
one fair and reasonable conclusion to the exclusion of all others that the
accused was the perpetrator of the crime.[30]
Otherwise stated, these requisites must concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which
the inference is derived are proven; and, (c) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[31]
In the case at bench, the following pieces of evidence pointing to the
appellant as the author of the crime concur: (a) accused-appellant proposed to Punay that they accost Rufo while they
were under the mango tree; (b) on the same occasion, accused-appellant revealed
to Punay that he had a previous grudge against the victim; (c) Calderon and
Punay saw accused-appellant accost, box and drag the victim towards the dark
place; (d) Calderon and Punay heard immediately thereafter the groaning voice
of the victim as if he was gasping for life; and, (e) Dr. Bacorro testified
that after the infliction of the first wound, the victim could have survived
only for 5 to 10 seconds, and that even with medical intervention the victim
would have died just the same.[32]
The trial court correctly rejected the alibi proffered by
appellant which was not only inherently
weak but became more dubious when it was sought to be established by appellant
himself with the aid of his brother, his neighbor, and the balae of his parents, and not by
disinterested, unbiased persons who would in the natural order of things be
best situated to support the alibi. It
has been repeatedly said that alibi is a defense easily fabricated especially
among parents, children and relatives, or even among those not so related, so
that great caution must be exercised in accepting it. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused
was somewhere else when the crime was committed but it must likewise be
demonstrated that he was so far away that he could not have been physically
present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission.[33]
The house of appellant, where he claims he was sleeping at the time of the
killing, is also in Babasit where it took place.[34] The
possibility for him to have gone to the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission was not thus remote.
We affirm appellant’s conviction for murder. Treachery qualified the killing to murder as
the accused employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the crime
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the victim might make.[35]
The victim was drunk, walking in a zigzag manner along the feeder road when he
was accosted and boxed by appellant. The victim fell down and, unable to rise, was dragged toward the dark
place beside the feeder road and then knifed to death.
Under Art. 248 of The Revised Penal Code, the prescribed penalty
for murder is reclusion temporal in
its maximum period to death. Apart from
treachery, there is no other aggravating or mitigating circumstance which attended
the commission of the crime, in which case, the penalty should be imposed in
its medium period, or reclusion
perpetua. The trial court however erroneously
sentenced accused-appellant to “life imprisonment” which is not the
same as reclusion perpetua which
is the correct penalty. While
“life imprisonment” may appear to be the English translation of reclusion perpetua, in reality, it
goes deeper than that. First,
“life imprisonment” is invariably imposed for serious offenses
penalized by special laws, while reclusion
perpetua is prescribed under The Revised Penal Code. Second, “life imprisonment,”
unlike reclusion perpetua, does
not carry with it any accessory penalty. Third, “life imprisonment” does not appear to have any definite extent or duration,
while reclusion perpetua entails
imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after which the convict becomes
eligible for pardon,[36]
although the maximum period thereof shall in no case exceed forty (40) years.[37]
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED, with the modification that
the proper penalty to be imposed on accused-appellant REYNALDO RETUTA is reclusion perpetua and the civil
indemnity to be paid to the heirs of RUFO T. NAOE, SR., is increased to
P50,000.00.
It appearing from the records that the accused Cresencio Retuta
has not yet been committed to jail as his surety failed to surrender him to the
trial court despite the order of this Court of 11 October 1993, the court a quo is directed to pursue the
arrest of the accused and his immediate commitment to the Bureau of Corrections
(New Bilibid Prisons). The Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Br. 48, is further
directed to submit a report thereon within ten (10) days from the arrest and
commitment of the accused.
Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
[1]
Rollo, p. 12.
[2]
Decision penned by Judge Alicia Gonzales Decano, Presiding Judge, Regional
Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Br. 48; Rollo, p. 32.
[3]
Rollo, p. 60.
[4]
Id., p. 61.
[5]
See Exh. “A.”
[6]
TSN, 12 April 1989, p. 8.
[7]
TSN, 9 May 1989, p. 5.
[8]
TSN, 12 April 1989, p. 10.
[9]
lbid.
[10]
TSN, 12 April 1989, pp. 8-12.
[11]
TSN, 9 May 1989, p. 7.
[12]
TSN, 26 July 1990, p. 4.
[13]
Id., p. 7.
[14]
Id., p. 16.
[15]
Id., p. 10.
[16]
Id., p. 15.
[17]
Id., p. 24.
[18]
Id., p. 11.
[19]
TSN, 9 May 1989, p. 3.
[20]
TSN, 12 April 1989, p. 10.
[21]
Id., p. 13.
[22]
TSN, 26 July 1990, p. 25.
[23]
TSN, 9 May 1989, p. 6.
[24]
TSN, 26 July 1990, p. 10.
[25]
Brief for the Appellee, pp. 18-19.
[26]
TSN, 26 July 1990, p. 18.
[27]
Brief for the Appellee, p. 21.
[28]
People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 77396, 20 July 1992, 211 SCRA 602.
[29]
People v. Pascua, G.R. No. 100990, 27 February 1992, 206 SCRA 628.
[30]
People v. Galendrez, G.R. Nos. 56465-66, 26 June 1992, 210 SCRA 360.
[31]
People v. Desalisa, G.R. No. 95262, 4 January 1994.
[32]
TSN, 12 April 1989, p. 4.
[33]
People v. Cadag, G.R. No.
93899, 8 May 1992, 208 SCRA 781.
[34]
TSN, 6 August 1990, p. 3.
[35]
People v. Uy, G.R. No.
84275, 14 February 1992, 206 SCRA 270.
[36]
People v. Baguio, G.R. No.
76585, 30 April 1991, 196 SCRA 459; People
v. Penillos, G.R. No. 65673, 30 January 1992, 205 SCRA 546;
Administrative Circular No. 6-92.
[37]
Art. 70, The Revised Penal Code.