PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LUISITO ISRAEL Y VILLANUEVA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused-appellant Luisito Israel was charged with and convicted
of the crime of Murder before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 149.^[1]
The antecedent facts are as follows:

Spent up by the celebration on the night of 31 December 1987,
Jose Dimacali, Jr. fell asleep on a bench in front of his house at No. 925-H
Asuncion St., Tondo, Manila. At about
4:00 o’clock in the morning of 1 January 1988, accused-appellant Luisito Israel
alias “Sitong” (hereunder referred to as Israel) together with three
(3) male companions went to the house of Dimacali, Jr. and surrounded the
latter who was sound asleep on the bench and totally oblivious of the people
who surrounded him. With a butcher’s
knife of about one and a half (1-1/2) feet long which he was holding, Israel
stabbed Dimacali, Jr. on the neck and chest.

After stabbing the victim, Israel and his companions fled. Seriously wounded, Dimacali, Jr. staggered
into their house to seek help from his parents who were roused from sleep by
his entrance. Seeing his son wounded
and drenched in his own blood, Jose Dimacali, Sr. immediately approached the
victim and the latter clung on to his father. When asked by his father as to the identity of the person who stabbed
him, the victim replied “Si Sitong, may kasama siya.” When further
asked who the companions of Sitong were, the victim’s answer was no longer
clear and intelligible.

Carrying his wounded son outside their house, Jose Dimacali, Sr.
shouted in anguish and anger asking who were the companions of the person who
stabbed his son, causing several people to gather in the area. With the help of a relative, the victim was
rushed by his mother to the Jose
Reyes Memorial Hospital while the victim’s father stayed behind hoping to find
“Sitong” and his companions. On the way to the hospital, the victim died.

An autopsy of the body of the victim was performed by Dr. Marcial
Cenido, Medico-Legal Officer of the Western Police District. The victim was found to have sustained stab
wounds on the neck, left chest and upper chest. The wounds on the neck and left chest were found to be fatal and
caused the death of the victim.^[2]
According to the findings of the Medico-Legal Officer, the wounds could have
been caused by a pointed single bladed weapon inflicted while the victim was
lying down.^[3]

On 7 January 1988, Jose Dimacali, Sr. reported the incident to
the Western Police District and executed a sworn statement naming therein
accused-appellant Luisito Israel alias “Sitong” as one of the
suspects.

An information dated 14 October 1988 was filed against Israel
charging him with Murder, committed as follows:

“That on or about January 1, 1988, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, conspi­ring and confederating together with
others whose true names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown
and helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and felo­niously attack,
assault and use personal violence upon the person of one JOSE DIMACALI, JR. Y
CLEMENTE, by then and there stabbing the latter with a bladed weapon hitting
him on the left chest and neck, thereby inflicting upon him stab wounds which
were necessarily fatal and which caused the death of the said JOSE DIMACALI,
JR. Y CLEMENTE, thereafter.

Contrary to law.”^[4]

In the evening of 18 October 1988, Israel went to the house of
Jose Dimacali, Sr. shouting invectives and challenging the latter for accusing
him of killing the victim. Passing
through the back door of their house, Jose Dimacali, Sr. went to report to the
police authorities the presence and actuations of Israel. Israel was arrested by the police
authorities.

Upon arraignment, Israel entered a plea of not guilty. At the trial, the prosecution presented
Clarita Sampang Pelayo, Remedios Italiano, Leonardo Pelayo and the father of
the victim, Jose Dimacali, Sr., as witnesses. The defense presented accused Israel and Alberto Turiaga as witnesses.

Clarita Sampang Pelayo, a neighbor of both the victim and the
accused, testified that she happened to be passing by the house of the victim
when the stabbing incident occurred, and that at about 12:30 o’clock in the
morning of 1 January 1988, her four (4) sons, between the ages of fifteen (15)
to twenty-two (22) years old, asked permission to go out in their neighborhood,
assuring her of their return as soon as they were ready to sleep. However, at about 4:00 o’clock in the
morning, Clarita discovered that her sons had failed to return home, thus, she
went out to search for them. Taking a
short route to the place where her sons went for a drinking spree, she passed
by the house of the victim which was well lighted. At a distance of about five (5) to six (6) armslength, she saw
the victim sleeping on a bench surrounded by Israel and three (3) male
companions. Israel was holding a
butcher’s knife of about 1-1/2 feet long and he stabbed Dimacali, Jr.
twice. Alarmed by what she witnessed,
Clarita started screaming and ran back to her house forgetting her original
intention to search for her sons.^[5]

Remedios Italiano, another neighbor whose house is situated
across the house of the victim, testified that at about 4:00 o’clock in the
morning of 1 January 1988 while she was taking out the assorted candies she was
selling in a stall in front of her house, she saw the victim sleeping on a
bench in front of their house while Israel and his three (3) companions were
standing around him. While Dimacali was
asleep, Israel stabbed the victim with a butcher’s knife three (3) times. Out of fear, Italiano immediately went
inside her house closing the door behind her. From outside, she heard a woman scream, followed by the voice of
her neighbor Jose Dimacali, Sr. shouting in anger.^[6]

Jose Dimacali, Sr. testified that between 4:00 to 4:30 o’clock in
the morning of 1 January 1988, he was awakened by his wife who was roused from
sleep when their son Jose Dimacali, Jr. staggered inside their house wounded
and covered with blood. Immediately,
Jose Dimacali, Sr. went to help his son who clung to him. When he asked their son the name of the
person who stabbed him, the victim said “Si Sitong. May kasama siya.” When further asked
who the companions of Sitong were, the victim’s answer was no longer clear for
blood was already oozing from his nose and mouth.^[7]

Leonardo Pelayo, who lives in the same neighborhood where both
the victim and Israel resided, testified to having seen Israel in the
neighborhood at about 10:00 to 10:30 in the evening of 31 December 1987; that
while he was buying some cigarettes in a variety store, he saw the accused
having a drinking spree with his companions. Between 11:00 to 12:00 o’clock midnight of that same date, Pelayo again
saw Israel walking towards the direction of the house of his parents.^[8]

For his defense, accused Israel claimed that in October 1987
until March 1988, he was employed as “caretaker-kapatas” in the
construction of a six-door apartment owned by his brother-in-law, Jose
Ballesteros, in sitio Anos, Los Banos, Laguna; that while employed as
“caretaker-kapatas,” he stayed at the apartment being constructed and
only came to Manila four (4) times for the purpose of getting money from his
sister-in-law to buy the materials they needed for the construction. His wife and children regularly visited him
at the construction site. His family
spent Christmas and New Year with him in Los Banos.

Israel claimed that on 31 December 1987, he reported to work at
the construction site together with Alberto Turiaga and other workers; that
with the exception of himself and Turiaga, all the workers left the site at
about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon to celebrate the New Year with their
respective families. He and Turiaga
spent the night at the site.

Israel declared that when he returned to Manila on 4 March 1988,
he learned from his wife that he was being implicated in the killing of Jose
Dimacali, Jr. Imme­diately, he went to
the residence of Jose Dimacali, Sr. and in front of the house of the latter, he
shouted “Bakit ninyo ako pinagbibintangan sa pagkamatay ng anak mo,
Peping.” When nobody responded, he left the place; however, about half a
meter away from the house of Jose Dimacali, Sr., four (4) policemen arrested
him.^[9]

To corroborate accused Israel’s claim of alibi, the defense
presented Alberto Turiaga who testified that he worked with Israel in the
construction of an apartment in Los Banos,
Laguna; and that on 31 December 1987, he and Israel were left at the site where
they spent the New Year.^[10]

Based on the evidence presented by both parties, the court a
quo rendered a decision dated 18 May 1989, convicting herein
accused-appellant Israel of the crime of murder. The dispositive part of the judgment reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the Accused
LUISITO ISRAEL guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, for the crime of
‘Murder’ defined in and penalized by Article 248, paragraph 1 of the Revised
Penal Code, attended by the aggravating circumstance of evident premedi­tation
and hereby imposes on said Accused the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with all the accessory penalties of the law
and hereby condemns the said Accused to pay to the heirs of the deceased the
amount of P5,000.00 as actual damages and the amount of P30,000.00 by way of
moral and exemplary damages and to pay the costs of suit. The period during which the Accused was
detained during the pendency of this case shall be credited to him provided
that he agreed in writing to abide by and comply strictly with the rules and
regula­tions of the City Jail.

SO ORDERED.”^[11]

Seeking a reversal of his conviction, accused-appellant Israel
claims that the court a quo erred in finding him guilty of the
crime charged despite failure of the prose­cution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt and in rejecting his defense of alibi. The trial court, according to the
accused-appellant, should not have given probative value to the alleged dying
declaration of the victim and the unreliable testimonies of the eyewitnesses.^[12]

We find no merit in this appeal.

As a rule, a dying declaration is hearsay and is inadmis­sible as
evidence. In order that a dying
declaration may be admissible as evidence, four (4) requisites must concur,
namely: that the declaration must
concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; that
at the time the declaration was made, the declarant was under a consciousness of
an impending death; that the declarant is competent as a witness; and that the
declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide,
in which the declarant is a victim.^[13]

In the present case, the declaration made by the victim to his
father before he died that it was the accused who stabbed him, is not
admissible as evidence. The prosecution
failed to prove that the victim was conscious of an impending death when he
made such utterance. To quote the
testimony of Jose Dimacali, Sr. –

“xxx   xxx     xxx

ATTY. MENESES III:

How did you come to know that your son was stabbed that day?

WITNESS:

My son was able to enter our house and my wife was awakened
and I was also awakened by my wife and when I stood up, my son met me and
embraced me, sir.

ATTY. MENESES III:

After you woke up and you were embraced by your son, what did you do,
Mr. Witness?

WITNESS:

I asked him who stabbed him, sir. My son answered ‘Sinaksak ako ni Sitong. May kasama siya.’ (I was stabbed by ‘Sitong’ and he had a companion.)

ATTY. MENESES III:

When you saw your son that morning, could you please describe how he
looks (sic) like at that time?

WITNESS:

When I saw him that morning, sir, he was bloodied all over and that was
when I asked him what happened to him.

ATTY. MENESES III:

What did you do after you saw him bloodied?

WITNESS:

I brought him outside of the house because he could not walk already
and then when (sic) were outside the house I kept on shouting, sir.

ATTY. MENESES III:

What
were you shouting, Mr. Witness?

WITNESS:

I was shouting ‘Kung sino ang pumatay na kasama ng anak ko,’ sir.

xxx   xxx    
xxx”^[14]

However, the declaration of the victim as
conveyed to his father may be treated as part of the res gestae.^[15]
All that is required for the admissibility of a given statement as part of the res
gestae, is that it be made under the influence of a startling event
witnessed by the person who made the declaration before he had time to think and make up a story; or to
concoct or contrive a falsehood, or to fabricate an account, and without any
undue influence in obtaining it, aside from referring to the event in question
or its immediate attending circumstances.^[16]

The only defense raised by the accused before the trial court was
alibi. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses
that can be resorted to by an accused, not only because it is inherently weak
and unreliable but also because of its easy fabrication without much
opportunity at checking or rebut­ting it. In the present case, it cannot prevail over the positive identification
of the accused-appellant by the witnesses. To validly establish alibi as a defense, accused must show that he was
at some other place for such a period of time and that it was impossible for
him to have been at the place where the crime was committed at the time of its
commission.^[17]
It is unavailing as a defense where there is an affirmative evidence of the
presence of the accused at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission, or where there is a positive identification of the accused as the
perpetrator of the offense, as well as where there is an ante mortem statement
received in evidence either as a dying declaration or as part of the res
gestae.^[18]

Accused-appellant Israel was positively identified as the one who
stabbed the victim on 1 January 1988 by no less than two (2) eyewitnesses. The night immediately before the incident
occurred, Israel was seen in their neighborhood in the company of several
individuals having a drinking spree in one of the variety stores in the
area. The victim had made a declaration
before he died that Israel was his assailant. Israel’s claim that it was not possible for him to have committed the
crime because he was in Los Baños when the victim was killed cannot prevail
over the ante mortem statement of the victim, specifically
singling him (Israel) out as the assailant and the positive identification by
the two (2) eyewitnesses, which is further corroborated by the testimony of
Leonardo Pelayo who testified that he saw the accused in their neighborhood
just a few hours before the incident occurred.

There is motive on the part of Israel in killing the victim. Sometime in August 1983, Israel and
Dimacali, Jr. had an altercation. As a
result, the victim stabbed Israel. A
complaint was filed by Israel against the victim before the Office of the
Barangay Captain. Although Israel had
agreed to an amicable settlement,^[19] it
is not farfetched that, after the incident, he bore a grudge against the
victim.

The delay on the part of the eyewitnesses in reporting the
incident does not automatically render their testimony as doubtful. The failure to reveal or disclose at once
the identity of the accused does not necessarily affect, much less impair the
credibility of the witnesses. The
initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information about a criminal case
and their unwillingness to be involved in criminal investigations due to fear
of reprisal are common and have been judicially declared not to affect
credibility.^[20]

Clarita Sampang agreed to execute an affidavit before the police
authorities on 20 October 1988, narrating therein the incident she witnessed on
1 January 1988 involving the accused Israel and Jose Dimacali, Jr., only after
the accused was arrested. Remedios
Italiano was reticent to testify even after the arrest of the accused. Both eye­witnesses
were fearful that the accused might turn against their families in retaliation
for their acting as eye­witnesses to the crime for which the accused was being
charged. They were apprehensive of
putting in jeopardy not only their own lives but the lives of their respective
families.

Likewise, the fact that Jose Dimacali, Sr. reported to the police
authorities the death of his son five (5) days after the incident occurred
should not affect the result of the case. Benumbed and shattered by the brutal death of his son, Jose Dimacali,
Sr. explained that he was in no condition then to think of the legalities of
reporting the incident to the police authorities.

It was observed by the trial court that both eyewit­nesses,
Clarita Sampang and Remedios Italiano, were catego­rical, spontaneous, candid
and straightforward in giving their testimonies. However, to discredit the credibility of the eyewitnesses,
accused pointed to some contradictions in the testimony of said witnesses. It is true that there were contradictions in
the testimony of the eyewitnesses as to the position of the victim when he was
stabbed and the number of times he was stabbed. Sampang testified that she saw the accused stab the victim twice
while the latter was sleeping on a bench “lying down on the right
side,” while Italiano claimed that she saw the accused stab the victim
three (3) times while the latter was “lying down with his face up.”

After a thorough review of the records of the case, we find no
cause or reasons to disturb the finding of the trial court regarding the
credibility of the eyewitnesses. The
trial court is in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having
seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner
of testifying. The impressions of the
trial court on the matter are binding upon this Court, unless there appears a
grave abuse of discretion or obvious misapprehension of facts, which does not
obtain in the case at bench.^[21]

The alleged contradictions in the testimony of the eyewitnesses pointed out by Israel refer to minor details and they are not
sufficient to overthrow the probative value accorded by the trial court to the
testimony of said eye­witnesses. Minor inconsistencies and
contradictions in the declarations of witnesses do not destroy the witnesses’
credibility but even enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of
a rehearsed testimony.^[22] For
it is not unusual for two (2) individuals to have different impressions and
recollection of what happened, more so when the event involved a killing in
cold blood of a defenseless individual in his sleep.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with the sole modification
that appellant Israel is ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim the
amount of P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.

Costs against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), shares
J. Regalado’s view in his separate concurring opinion.

Regalado, J., see concurring and partial separate opinion.

Nocon and Puno, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Criminal Case No. 88-67578 SCC

^[2]
Post-Mortem Findings of the Medico Legal Division of the WPD, Records, pp.
16-17

^[3]
Testimony of Marcial Cenido, TSN of 12 December 1988 hearing, pp. 3-4, p. 10.

^[4]
Rollo, p. 4

^[5]
TSN of 12 December 1988 hearing, pp. 12-16

^[6]
TSN of 30 January 1989 hearing, pp. 2-6

^[7]
TSN of 6 March 1989 hearing, pp. 5-7

^[8]
TSN of 17 April 1989 hearing, pp. 3-4

^[9]
TSN of 6 March 1989 hearing, pp. 68-90

^[10]
Ibid, pp. 116-121

^[11]
Rollo, p. 35

^[12]
Ibid, pp. 70-71

^[13]
People vs. Lazarte, G.R. No. 89762, 7 August 1991, 200 SCRA 361

^[14]
Testimony of Jose Dimacali, Sr., TSN of 6 March 1989, pp. 6-7

^[15]
People vs. Lazarte, supra

^[16]
People vs. Abboc, G.R. No. L-28327, 14 September 1973, 53 SCRA 54

^[17]
People vs. Devaras, G.R. No. L-48009, 3 February 1992, 205 SCRA 676

^[18]People
vs. Estera, G.R. No. 101556, 31 March 1992, 207 SCRA 703

^[19]
Kasunduang Pag-aayos dated 23 August 1983, records, p. 25

^[20]
People vs. Loveria, G.R. No. 79138, 2 July 1990, 187 SCRA 47

^[21]
Araneta, Jr. vs. CA, G.R. No. 43527, 3 July 1990, 187 SCRA 123

^[22]
People vs. Arcega, G.R. No. 96319, 31 March 1992, 207 SCRA 681

250

6 pt
6 pt
0
3