THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODOLFO “RUDY” CAYETANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

On June 9, 1988, Rodolfo “Rudy” Cayetano was charged before
the Regional Trial Court of the 5th Judicial Region (Roxas City, Branch 16),
with the crime of murder in an Information which reads:

That on or about the 3rd day of February, 1988, in the City of
Roxas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused armed with a handgun with intent to kill, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot with said handgun one ANTONIO
BAES, JR. inflicting upon him wounds, to wit:

1. Gunshot wound located at the forehead 1 cm.
above the right eyebrow, with inverted border, with bluish discoloration of the
skin, measuring 1 cm. in its greatest diameter, penetrating the skull injuring
the brain tissues;

2. Gunshot wound located at the anterior
aspect of the neck, just below the chin, oval in shape with bluish
discoloration of the skin, measuring 1 cm. in diameter; point of exist located
at the right side of the mandible 3 cm below the right pinna, stellate in shape
with everted border.

which injuries resulted to his death.

That the qualifying circumstance of treachery is present, the
accused employed nighttime to insure his sudden unprovoked attack coupled with
the generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.

That as a direct consequence of the unlawful act of the accused,
the heirs of the deceased suffered actual, moral and other damages in the
amount of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Roxas City, Philippines, June 9, 1988.

(SGD) NAPOLEON VC FERRER

1st Asst. City Fiscal

Incharge of Office

(pp. 76-77, Rollo.)

Following trial on the
merits due to Cayetano’s plea of “not guilty”, the lower court
rendered its decision on October 19, 1990, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Rodolfo (Rudy) Cayetano
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER and taking into account
the presence of the generic aggravating circumstance(s) of evident
premeditation without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same and taking
into consideration the abolition of the death penalty under the 1987
Constitution [this court] hereby imposes upon said accused the single penalty
of Cadena Perpetua (life imprisonment) together with the accessory penalty, to
indemnify the heirs of Antonio Baes Jr., in the amount of P30,000.00 without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs in this
case.

He shall be credited with the full period of his detention under
Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 6127.

SO ORDERED. (p. 96, Rollo.)

From the judgment of
conviction, Cayetano has appealed to us putting forward the single and sweeping
argument:

THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PROSECUTION
FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME
OF MURDER AND ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED APPELLANT OF SAID
CRIME OF MURDER. (p. 102,
Rollo.)

The brief submitted by
the Office of the Solicitor General presents the established background facts,
thus:

On February 3, 1988, Reynaldo Bartolo came home at about 5:00
o’clock in the afternoon from his work as tricycle driver (pp. 13-14, tsn, Feb.
22, 1989). Upon arriving at his house
at Barangay Cagay, Roxas City, Bartolo asked his brother-in-law, Antonio Baes,
Jr. about his basketball (pp. 6, 11, 14, tsn, Id.). Baes, Jr. answered that the ball was taken by appellant. Bartolo then went to the basketball court
where appellant and his group were playing basketball. Bartolo got the ball when it rolled to the
side of the court and left with it (pp. 15, 16, tsn, Id.). Before Bartolo could leave the basketball
court, appellant said in a threatening voice, “Tan-awa galing karon kay
may matabo!” (You will see, something will happen by and by). (p. 17, tsn, Id.).

At about 8:00 o’clock in
the evening of the same day, the house of Bartolo was stoned 3 times (pp. 18,
25, tsn, Id.). After the third time of
stoning, Bartolo went down the house and went near the house of his brother
William (pp. 26-27, tsn, Id.; p. 3, tsn, Sept. 18, 1989). Following Bartolo at a distance of 30 meters
was Antonio Baes, Jr. (pp. 28, 32, tsn, Feb. 22, 1989). When Baes, Jr. came closer to Bartolo, he
asked Bartolo to return to the house (p. 2, tsn, Sept. 18, 1989).

While Bartolo and Baes, Jr. were walking back to the house, there
was a sudden burst of gunfire and Bartolo just saw Baes, Jr. lying on the
ground with his face upward (pp. 3-4, tsn, Id.). Ramon Belo who was in a nearby store saw appellant shoot the
victim (pp. 3-4, tsn, Feb. 14, 1990). Bartolo then ran towards the house of his brother William and asked for
help. William brought out his tricycle
and used it to bring Baes, Jr. to the St. Anthony Hospital (pp. 4, 5, tsn,
Sept. 18, 1989). Baes, Jr. was taken to
the emergency room but a short time thereafter, one Dr. Billones pronounced him
dead. Bartolo then went to the police
quarters and reported the matter for investigation (p. 5, tsn, Id.). [pp. 1-2, Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee;
p. 159, Rollo.]

Dr. Rafael Almalbis, Jr.
of the Roxas City Health Office conducted a post-mortem examination on Baes,
Jr. and found two gunshot wounds, one on the forehead and the other on the
anterior aspect of the neck. According
to him, the immediate cause of death was the first gunshot (intra­crannial
hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wound), fired at close range. The gun, he declared:

… must have been fired at close-range which could be at a
distance of not closer than 6 inches but not farther than 24 inches from the
victim. The assailant must have been in
front of the victim when the former fired the gun at the latter and it could be
possible that both of them were on standing position. (p. 78, Rollo.)

Accused-appellant was convicted on the basis of his positive
identification as the assailant by Ramon Belo, which the trial court, in terse
telegraphic and a bit ungrammatical sentences, summarized as follows:

While he was sitting just outside the store of Deling he saw the
accused Rudy Cayetano standing and
leaning against the fence of a yard. Almost at the same moment he saw the victim, Antonio Baes, Jr.
arrive. The victim was about to turn
towards the pathway leading to their house, he (victim) was shot by the
accused. The victim then fell to the
ground. He saw the gun which the
accused used. It was a hand?gun
about 11 inches long. The witness ran
away. (pp. 9-10, RTC Decision; pp.
83-84, Rollo.)

Based on a sketch made in open court by Reynaldo Bartolo (Exh.
“C”), a picture is presented of the location of Bartolo’s house and
the place where Baes, Jr. was shot. Fronting Bartolo’s house which faces east is a pathway, fenced on both
sides by bamboo trees (Tsn, Feb. 2, 1989, p. 24; Exh. “C-7”). This pathway connects to a cemented road south of Bartolo’s house (Exh.
“C-6”), known as Cagay Road. The place where Baes, Jr. was shot, which is marked by an “X”
on the sketch, is at the corner of the pathway and the Cagay Road (Tsn, Oct.
25, 1989, p. 4). Baes, Jr. fell on the
cemented road, face upward. This corner
is about 40 meters away from Reynaldo’s house, forming a right angle, and also the same distance to William
Bartolo’s house, which is at Cagay Road. It is 10 meters away from Deling’s Store which is likewise located along
Cagay Road (Decision, p. 83, Rollo).

The testimony of Bartolo
on the circumstances prior to the killing was synthesized by the trial court in
the following manner:

After hearing the 3rd thudding sound, the witness went down the
house. When he left he saw the victim
Antonio Baes, Jr., lying on a hammock inside the house. After touching the ground the witness
proceeded towards the house of his brother William. He had gone already for about 30 meters from his house then he looked back. He noticed that Antonio Baes, Jr., was
following. The moon that night was
bright and was up in the sky at the position of 10:00 o’clock A.M. by the
sun. (This could be about 60°
angle of the arc from 6:00 o’clock to 12:00 o’clock going clockwise.)

After he noticed that Antonio Baes, Jr. was following him he
stopped and waited for him. When
Antonio Baes, Jr. was approaching the witness the former said: “Manoy, let’s go back because we could
not find the man who threw the stones.”

The two nevertheless proceeded to the house of William Bartolo and
found it closed. Everything was
quiet. The two decided to go back home.
Antonio Baes, Jr. was following about 9
meters behind the witness (Bartolo). Suddenly, the witness heard an explosion. He looked back and saw that his brother-in?law had
fallen. (p. 81, Rollo.)

Reynaldo Bartolo further
testified:

Q.   What
happened then?

A.    While
we were on our way back to our house Antonio Baes, Jr. was ahead of me and when
I turned back I heard a blast (lupok).

Q.   What
happened next?

A.    After
the blast when I turned my face to my brother-in-law he was already lying in
the road facing upward.

Q.   How
far were you then at your brother-in-law when you heard that burst?

A.    May
be from the witness stand to the main door of the Court estimating around 9
meters more or less.

(Tsn, Sept. 18, 1989, p. 3.)

Accused-appellant,
however, believes that his identity was not satisfactorily established due to
inaccuracies or inconsistencies in Belo’s testimony. It is argued that while Belo testified in court that he saw
accused-appellant leaning on the fence beside the Tiya Deling’s Store and that
accused-appellant then shot Baes, Jr., while the latter was about to make a
turn towards his (Baes, Jr.’s) house, in his affidavit, Belo stated that
accused-appellant was squatting by the side of the pathway and when
accused-appellant noticed two persons walking following each other, he suddenly
stood up and aimed his gun at the man walking at the front.

Likewise, as against
Belo’s testimony in court that he immediately ran away after he saw Baes, Jr.
fall to the ground, Belo stated in his affidavit that he even asked permission
from Tiya Deling (the owner of the store) that he be allowed to pay his debt
the following day.

The inconsistencies,
however, refer to minor details and do not affect Belo’s positive
identification of accused?appellant as the assailant. Inconsistencies in the testimony of
prosecution witnesses do not affect their credibility for as long as there is
no disagreement as to the identity of the malefactor. Indeed, more convincing is the testimony with a bit of
inconsistency than memorized perjury (People vs. Segwaben, 194 SCRA 239
[1991], citing People vs. Jutie, 171 SCRA 586 [1989], at p. 241).

Accused-appellant’s
defense is alibi, that is, that he was asleep in his house at the time of the
accident. He denied his presence at the
basketball court and disowned any motive to kill Baes, Jr. To corroborate his testimony, he presented
his sister, Lucia Panis, and his father, Rosendo Cayetano.

We have consistently
ruled that alibi is a weak defense and can only be accepted upon the clearest
proof that the accused was not or could not have been at the scene of the crime
when it was consummated (People vs. Peralta, 193 SCRA 9 [1991]), more so
if the alibi is established by the accused himself and his relatives, and not
by credible persons (People vs. Solis, 195 SCRA 405 [1991]; People
vs. Flores, 195 SCRA 295 [1991]). Further, the ocular inspection of the place conducted by the trial court
in the presence of the prosecution, defense counsel, Reynaldo Bartolo, and
accused-appellant, revealed that accused-appellant’s house is located near the
basketball court and is only 150 meters away from the place where Baes, Jr. was
shot, following a straight line, or 200 meters, by a circuitous route. There was, therefore, no physical
impossibility for accused-appellant to have been at the scene of the crime at
the time it was committed.

On the absence of motive,
again, we have ruled that motive is immaterial where the identity of the
accused has been established (People vs. Gabatin, 203 SCRA 225 [1991]; People
vs. Ballinas, 202 SCRA 519 [1991]; People vs. Pigon, 173 SCRA 607
[1989]). Neither is motive an essential
element of murder for which reason it does not have to be proved by the
prosecution (People vs. Catalina Lorioda, et al., G.R. No. 93240, January
22, 1993). Motive in the case at bar
becomes relevant only to determine the nature of the crime committed.

In convicting
accused-appellant, the trial court used treachery (employing nighttime to
ensure his sudden unprovoked attack) and the presence of the generic
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation without any mitigating
circumstance to qualify the crime to murder (People vs. Aguilar, 88
Phil. 693 [1951]).

We agree that the
presence of treachery qualified the crime to murder. However, we do not believe that there was evident
premeditation. Mere threats unsupported
by other evidence which would disclose the true criminal state of mind of the
accused do not justify a finding of evident premeditation. The rule is that the qualifying circumstance
of premeditation is satisfactorily established only if it is proved that the
accused had deliberately planned to commit the crime, and had persistently and
continuously followed it, notwithstanding the passage of ample time to allow
his conscience to overcome the determination of his will, if he had so desired,
after meditation and reflection (People vs. Bautista, 79 Phil. 652
[1977]; People vs. Sarmiento, 8 SCRA 263; People vs. Edna Cordero,
G.R. No. 97229, January 5,1993).

There being no aggravating
or mitigating circumstances, the applicable sentence, pursuant to People vs.
Muñoz (170 SCRA 107 [1989]; People vs. Barba (203 SCRA 436 [1991]),
is the medium period of the penalty prescribed by Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code which is reclusion perpetua which the trial court,
however, equated with life imprisonment or cadena perpetua; and
conformably with recent rulings, the civil indemnity should be increased to
P50,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED
with the following modifications: (1) the imprisonment penalty should be Reclusion Perpetua;
and (2) the amount of indemnity to be paid by accused-appellant to the heirs of
the victim is increased to P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Davide, Jr., and Romero, JJ., concur.