THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CARMELO BOLIMA, LEOPOLDO BRITANICO, ROGELIO BRITANICO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

People versus Bolima

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Carmelo Bolima, Leopoldo Britanico, and Rogelio Britanico for the killing of Generoso Lelis, a fellow collector of fees in the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Tabaco, Albay. The killing arose from a dispute over the collection of fees from incoming trucks. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats a dying declaration that names only one assailant, how it resolves alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses in an ambulatory crime, and how conspiracy, treachery, and abuse of superior strength are established from the simultaneous attack and the multiple wounds inflicted on the victim.

Procedural History

An information for murder was filed in the Regional Trial Court in Tabaco, Albay against Carmelo Bolima, Leopoldo Britanico, Rogelio Britanico, Gomer Bolima, and Domingo Britanico. Upon arraignment, all the accused pleaded not guilty, except Gomer Bolima, who was at large. After pre-trial and trial on the merits, the trial court rendered a decision on June 15, 1988, convicting Carmelo Bolima, Leopoldo Britanico, and Rogelio Britanico of murder and sentencing them to an indeterminate prison term of from twelve years of prision mayor as minimum to sixteen years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum, with all the accessories of the law. It acquitted Domingo Britanico for lack of evidence, ordered the three convicted accused jointly and severally to pay the heirs of Generoso Lelis thirty thousand pesos as indemnity, one hundred seventeen thousand pesos for loss of income, thirteen thousand one hundred fifty pesos for wake, funeral, and burial expenses, and fifty thousand pesos as moral damages, with equal costs, and sent the records with respect to Gomer Bolima to the file of archived cases to be revived upon his apprehension.

Not satisfied, the three convicted accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, assigning as errors the conviction despite a dying declaration pointing to Gomer Bolima as the one who stabbed the victim, and the disregard of substantial facts and material circumstances that could result in acquittal. The Solicitor General filed the brief for the appellee, and as no reply brief was filed by the appellants, the case was deemed submitted for decision. On October 12, 1990, the appellate court rendered a decision affirming the appealed decision with costs but modifying the penalty to reclusion perpetua. No entry of judgment was made, and instead the case was certified to the Supreme Court for review.

Facts

In the afternoon of May 7, 1986, Generoso Lelis and Carmelo Bolima were at the Tabaco Police Station in Albay to thresh out a dispute, in that Lelis was allegedly intruding upon Bolima's territory in the collection of fees of incoming trucks. Both were collectors in the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Tabaco. Bolima left the police station at five o'clock that afternoon.

Before seven o'clock that same evening, Lelis was drinking with Oro Atun at the store of Tino Beronilla at the supermarket of Tabaco when Jose Brillantes joined them. The three left to drink further. While passing near the stalls where cutlery products were being sold, a man suddenly attacked Lelis by stabbing him with a bolo. The attacker stumbled, so Lelis ran away. The assailant, identified as Carmelo Bolima, stood up and chased Lelis. Lelis also stumbled and was confronted by Leopoldo Britanico, who hacked him several times with a bolo. Lelis ran towards Mercy's Place but was again hacked by Rogelio Britanico and Leopoldo Britanico, who maligned him and said they would kill him. Someone blew a whistle, so the assailants fled.

Lelis was rushed to the Tabaco General Hospital. Dr. Cope, the attending physician, after treating him, advised that he be transferred to the Albay Provincial Hospital, which had better facilities. On the way, Lelis expired. Dr. Maximino Vera of the Municipal Health Office of Tabaco conducted an autopsy and listed numerous incised and punctured wounds on the body of the victim, and the cause of death was internal hemorrhage secondary to stab wound. A dying declaration was taken by Police Corporal Rosalio Bonavente at the Tabaco Hospital. Lelis was already stuttering, and his words were no longer clear. When asked who stabbed him, Bonavente heard a faint sound from the mouth of Lelis saying Gomer, so he indicated in the dying declaration the name of Gomer Bolima. When questioned further, Lelis no longer gave any answer and turned his head sideways.

Issues

• Whether or not the dying declaration of the victim, naming only Gomer Bolima as his assailant, exculpates the appellants.
• Whether or not the alleged darkness of the place and the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses affect the identification of the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime.
• Whether or not conspiracy, treachery, and abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the offense, warranting conviction for murder.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, under which the accused were charged and convicted, provides:

Article 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise. 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity. 5. With evident premeditation. 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

This provision defines the crime of murder and supplies the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength that the Court found in this case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the dying declaration did not exculpate the appellants. On the contrary, the dying declaration in effect confirmed the theory of the prosecution that Gomer Bolima was involved in the conspiracy to murder Lelis. Unfortunately, when the victim was asked to identify the other assailants, he was too weak to answer any further, and he died soon after. The Court noted that the appellants offered no objection to the dying declaration and instead took advantage of it.

On the second issue, the Court was not persuaded. While the appellants doubted the veracity of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that Leopoldo Britanico hacked Generoso Lelis, they nevertheless gave weight to the testimonies of the same witnesses that the place was dark. The alleged inconsistencies were more apparent than real. The assault did not occur in one place; the whole incident was ambulatory, occurring in various places. Thus, while Atun testified that the place of the incident was dark, referring to the place where the bolos were sold, Nipolo said the place was well-lighted, as he was referring to the place in the supermarket where the victim ran and was pursued by his assailants. The trial court correctly assessed the situation when it made the following disquisition:

With respect to the claim of the defense that it was dark at the time, as testified to by some of the witnesses for the prosecution, the same may be true with respect to the first of the series of attacks but such darkness cannot totally exclude others, especially those who know one another to recognize someone. In the place where the second attack took place, it is not so dark and near the Mary's Place, with all the establishment there, the place is not dark.

The Court also held that the alleged inconsistencies related to minor matters and, rather than affect the credibility of witnesses, were badges of their truthfulness and candor. The failure of Nipolo to come to the aid of Lelis was not unnatural, as he must have been caught by surprise and the better part of discretion prevented him from coming to the aid of the victim, as it might jeopardize his own life. The failure of Villegas and Sancopan to immediately reveal what they knew to the police was also understandable, as Sancopan admitted that fear of the possibility of reprisal was the reason she hesitated, and the similar initial reluctance of Villegas must also have been out of fear of the appellants, which cannot affect his credibility.

On the third issue, the Court held that conspiracy had been established by the simultaneous attack by the appellants on the victim and the multiple wounds the latter suffered caused by different weapons that caused his death soon thereafter. Treachery and abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the offense. The conviction of all appellants for murder was but proper.

Doctrine

A dying declaration that names only one assailant does not exculpate other accused who are shown by independent evidence to have conspired in the killing; it may even confirm the existence of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is established by the simultaneous attack by the accused on the victim and the multiple wounds the latter suffered caused by different weapons. Treachery and abuse of superior strength qualify the killing to murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses that relate to minor matters, and the initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information to the police out of fear of reprisal, do not affect their credibility; rather, they are badges of truthfulness and candor. In an ambulatory crime, the fact that one place of the incident was dark does not exclude recognition of the assailants in another well-lighted place where the attack continued.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 12, 1990, with the modification that the indemnity to the heirs of the victim was increased to fifty thousand pesos, with costs against the defendants-appellants.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a dying declaration naming only one assailant does not exculpate the others when conspiracy is established by the simultaneous attack and the multiple wounds inflicted by different weapons. Examiners like to use this case to test conspiracy, treachery, and abuse of superior strength under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and the credibility of witnesses in ambulatory crimes.