PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PERFECTO BRIONES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The accused, Perfecto Briones, was found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder for killing Nida Romano. The information against him in Criminal Case No. CBU-13932 of the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu (Branch 16) reads as follows:

“That on or about
the 28th day of March, 1988 at about 7:00 p.m. in the City of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, armed with a deadly weapon, with deliberate intent, with intent to
kill, and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there suddenly
and unexpectedly attack, assault and stab one Nida Romano with said deadly
weapon, thereby inflicting upon her the following physical injuries:

“‘severe hemorrhage due to multiple
stab and incised wounds.’

and as a consequence of said in­juries,
said Nida Romano died few minutes later.

“NO BAIL RECOMMENDED.” (p. 1,
Records.)

Upon arraignment on November 23, 1988, the accused pleaded not
guilty.

After trial, a decision was rendered by the court a quo
convicting him of the crime charged. The disposi­tive portion of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, in the context of the evidence on record, the
Court finds the accused Perfecto Briones guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of murder, for which he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, and to further indemnify the heirs of Nida Romano in the tune
of P30,000.00.

“The accused is entitled to full credit for his preventive
imprisonment if he agrees in writing to abide by the rules promulgated for
convicted prisoners, otherwise, he shall be credited with only 4/5s
thereof.” (p. 238, Records.)

The facts established by the evidence in the records are the
following:

Twelve-year old Marilyn Merced had been living in the house of
her Aunt, Mrs. Ampalayo, at the St. Jude Subdivision, Phase 111, Bulacao,
Pardo, Cebu City.

On March 28, 1988, at around seven o’clock in the evening,
Marilyn was in Mrs. Ampalayo’s house with Nida Romano, their househelper, and
the accused who had come at six o’clock to visit. The other members of the household, namely, the spouses Ampalayo
and their two children, Gina and Jessica, had not yet come home. A nephew, Erasmo Riquilino, was watching
television in the house of their neighbor, the Rizzari’s.

Nida Romano was cooking supper, while Marilyn and the accused
watched television. The accused asked
Nida to buy coke, so Nida requested Marilyn to go to her (Nida’s) room to get
money for that purpose. Marilyn got P2.25
from Nida’s room, then proceeded to the dirty kitchen at the back of the house
to get an empty coke bottle. The
“dirty kitchen” was a separate structure from the house, and Marilyn
had to pass through the back door of the house to get to the “dirty”
kitchen (pp. 8-­9, tsn, Feb. 1, 1989). Nida was not cooking in the “dirty” kitchen, but in the
“clean” kitchen in the main house.

After getting a coke bottle, Marilyn returned to the house
through the same back door, closing it behind her. The door was fitted with an automatic lock which could only be
opened from the inside, but could not be opened from the outside without a key.

From the kitchen, Marilyn then passed through the dining and
living rooms, and left through the front door, then out by the main (and only)
gate of the compound. She intended to
buy coke at the Pascua store about 40 meters from the Ampalayo residence. Only the accused and Nida were left in the
house. Marilyn took only two minutes to
buy a bottle of coke.

Upon entering the yard of their house, Marilyn saw no one, but
she heard a woman screaming inside the house. She quickened her steps, proceeded to the dining room and placed the
bottle of coke on the dining table. The
dining area was well-lit by an overhead circular fluorescent lamp.

Looking toward the toilet, which was only about seven (7) meters
from where she stood, Marilyn saw Nida lying on her back on the toilet floor
kicking her legs and struggling while a half-naked man clad only in shorts, was
stabbing her repeatedly, using both hands and stooping over her body.

Marilyn was able to witness quite clearly what was happening for
the toilet door was open, and she had an unobstructed view of the toilet, which
was only two steps up from the dining room. She could not see the faces of both Nida and her assailant, as the upper
portion of their bodies was partly hidden by the wall of the toilet. She, however, recognized Nida because of the
white pedal pushers she was wearing at the time. Marilyn noticed that the kitchen door was still closed, and so
was the window near the kitchen door, which had protective iron grills.

Suddenly terrified by the grisly scene she was witnessing,
Marilyn ran out of the house to look for help.

She ran toward the house of their neighbor, Quintin Rizzari, but
before she reached the gate thereof, she was suddenly grabbed from behind by a
person who pulled her by her hair and the collar of her T-shirt. Marilyn clung to the Rizzari’s iron gate
even after she had fallen down. At this
point, she recognized the man who was pulling her as the accused.

The Rizarri brothers, Ramil and Ruel, upon hearing Marilyn’s
shouts that Nida was covered with blood, came out of their house. Erasmo Riquilino was with them. They saw the accused chasing Marilyn and
pulling her by the hair and collar of her T-shirt. After Marilyn fell beside the gate, the accused left her and
returned to the Ampalayo house. He was
half-naked and wore blood­stained shorts. There was blood also on his face, body, arms and legs. The Rizarris asked him, “what is
that?” but he did not answer (p. 15, tsn., March 1, 1989).

The Rizarris took Marilyn into their house, where she recounted
to Aiding Rizarri what she had seen.

After a few minutes, the appellant, still half-naked and bloody, returned
to the Rizarris’ house. He stood beside
the gate and stared at Marilyn, who was seated on a chair near the open
door. He ignored the Rizarris’
questions then went back to the Ampalayo house. After a while, he again returned to the house of the Rizarris. When queried, he replied that he suspected
Marilyn of having killed Nida. He still
wore his shorts, but had donned a blood-stained T-shirt.

Later, the Rizarris together with Erasmo and Mrs. Ampalayo, who
had arrived in the meantime together with a certain Ernesto Tolosa, went inside
the Ampalayo house and saw Nida’s body on the toilet floor. They took Nida in Ernesto Tolosa’s car to
the hospital. While this was taking
place, the accused stood at the back door of the Ampalayo house, not saying a
word and doing nothing to help.

Nida Romano suffered forty-two (42) stab wounds, nineteen of
which were fatal, according to Dr. Crisosto­mo Abbu, the physician who
conducted the post-mortem examination. The cause of her death was hypovolemic shock secondary to massive
hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds. Dr. Abbu opined that two different weapons were used by her assailant.

The light green T-shirt which Marilyn was wearing during the
incident was stained with blood on the right shoulder and on the back, after
the accused grabbed her. Upon
submission of the T-shirt to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for
examination, it was ascertained that the stains were human blood.

The next morning, Cresencio Ampalayo, on a hunch that the murder
weapons must be somewhere around his premises, went out of the compound to look
for it outside their fence. He found a
screwdriver which was stained with dried blood. He recognized the screwdriver as his own which he often used in
fixing his car and normally kept in a drawer in the sala of his house. After bringing the screwdriver inside the
house, accom­panied by a friend, Cresencio returned to the same place where he
found it. There he found a knife which
did not belong to them. It was also
stained with dried blood.

Both the screwdriver and the knife were later sent to the NBI,
where it was ascertained that the dried blood on both implements was of human
origin. On the witness stand, Dr. Abbu
confirmed that the wounds sus­tained by Nida must have been caused by two (2)
differ­ent weapons, such as the knife and the screwdriver which Cresencio
Ampalayo found outside the fence of the compound. The doctor admitted that possibly only one person, using both
hands, inflicted all the wounds sustained by Nida.

The accused admitted that he was in the Ampalayo house in the
early evening of March 28, 1988; that Nida Romano and Marilyn Merced were the
only persons in the house; that shortly after he arrived, he asked Nida for a
bottle of coke; that Nida asked Marilyn to get money from her (Nida’s) room to
buy coke; that Marilyn, after getting the money, went to a nearby store; that
he tried to ask Marilyn to buy cigarettes also, but the girl had already left,
so he decided to wait for her in front of the house. While waiting there, he allegedly heard Mr. Ampalayo’s dog bark
followed by the sound of a fall and what seemed to him as Nida’s muffled
shouts. A minute later, he went inside
and saw two persons near the restroom taking turns in stabbing Nida
Romano. One of the assailants, on
noticing him, charged at him and thrust a knife at him. He parried it with his left hand but his
thumb was wounded. He shouted for help
and rushed to the door but when he glanced back, he saw that the intruders had
escaped through an opening in the fence. He went back and tried to carry Nida out of the toilet, but he found her
too heavy. He took off his shirt and
used it to wipe Nida’s face and neck. While he was wiping Nida, he noticed that Marilyn had arrived. He called Marilyn but the girl ran out. He ran after her so she could help him carry
Nida. He overtook Marilyn at the
Rizarris’ gate and tried to pull her back to the house. Marilyn held on to the gate so the collar of
her shirt was ripped. He told Quintin
Rizarri about the armed men. Ramil and
Ruel Rizarri and Erasmo Riqui­lino accompanied him to the Ampalayo house where
he saw Mrs. Ampalayo who had arrived in the meantime. He related the incident to her, Ramil, Ruel, Erasmo and Danny
Estinozo carried Nida to the car of Mr. Tolosa. Some policemen arrived shortly.

Defense witnesses Amadeo Abaquita and Eduardo Briones, the father
of the accused, testified that when they went to Mr. Ampalayo’s house the next
morning, he showed them the screwdriver and the knife which he had found
outside the fence (Exhs. G and H). They
observed that a portion of Mr. Ampalayo’s fence at the back was destroyed,
leaving a hole through which a person could easily pass. They stated that they noticed drops of blood
near the fence.

Julius Decena, another defense witness, told the court that while
he was standing near the house of Mr. Ampalayo, at about 7:00 o’clock in the
evening of March 28, 1988, he noticed two persons pass through an opening in
the fence. He looked at them when they
passed by but their heads were bowed and they walked very fast. He followed them for about 15 to 20
meters. The taller person proceeded to
the highway, and the other went toward Inayawan, Pardo. Suspecting that they were thieves, he
returned to the Ampalayo house. He
asked Ruel Rizarri and Erasmo Riquilino what had happened but they did not
know. When he entered the Ampalayo
house, he saw bloodstains in the dining room. Later, he saw Nida Romano being carried by Danding Estinozo, Ramil and
Ruel Rizarri to the car of Mr. Tolosa.

The lower court gave full faith and credit to the prosecution’s
version and rendered the aforequoted decision convicting, the accused of
murder.

The accused has appealed.

After a careful examination of the evidence in record, we affirm
the appealed judgment of the trial court. The prosecution’s evidence, consisting mainly of the testimonies of
Marilyn Merced, as corroborated by Ramil Rizarri and Salvador Divinagracia,
plus the testi­monies of Dr. Crisostomo Abbu and Mr. Ampalayo, con­vinces this
Court, with moral certainty, that the ac­cused-appellant, and no one else,
killed Nida Romano. Marilyn’s
testimony, in particular, was credible and reliable. The trial court observed:

“The Court has studied at length the testimony of 13-year old
Marilyn Merced and it has not found any material flaw therein which would
provoke the slightest doubt either in its truth or as to her credibility. Her account of the incident she had
witnessed is both logical and probable and more importantly, she gave it in
straightforward fashion. She could not
have been wrong in what she said the half-naked man who turned out to be the
accused was doing to Nida Romano in the restroom. There was spontaneity in the way she demonstrated to the Court
how the man had stabbed the victim successively with the use of both
hands. She even described the position
of the victim and how she had struggled and kicked as she was being
attacked. Certainly, the act of pulling
Nida out or of wiping her face and neck, which is what the accused said he was
doing when Marilyn arrived, is so different from or disassociated with the
stabbing strokes that the latter had illustrated, such that she could not have
mistaken and confused one for the other. At the very least, the witness appears to be of sufficient age and
reason as to be able to distinguish one act from the other. It is
also very unlikely that Mari­lyn had hereby imagined the kicking motions
that she said Nida Romano did at the time. It is significant to take note of Marilyn’s spontane­ous reaction to the
restroom scene which was one of fright. As admit­ted by the accused, Marilyn ran out of the house and he had to
pursue her up to the gate of Quintin Rizar­ri. This is strongly suggestive of the fact that what she saw was something
that was frightening. Her kind of
response is more compatible with the stabbing incident that she described to
the Court than the accused’s story that he was merely wiping Nida’s face and
neck, which would not have presented as a terrifying sight to the girl. In sum, since there is no trace of vacilla­tion,
equivocation or exaggeration in the way the young girl had testi­fied, the
Court finds her testimony worthy of credence.” (pp. 32-33, Rollo.)

The trial court’s assessment of Marilyn’s credibility deserves
the highest respect, because the trial judge had the advantage of observing her
demeanor and could thereby easily discern if she was telling the truth (People
vs. Ornoza, 151 SCRA 495; People vs. Abaya, 170 SCRA 691; People vs. Madrid,
G.R. No. 94298, June 22, 1992).

Appellant faults the trial court for convicting him despite lack
of sufficient evidence to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence
in his favor and for “giving more weight to the testimony of Marilyn
Merced, Salvador Divinagracia and Ramil Rizarri” (p. 1, Appellant’s Brief,
p. 40, Rollo).

The submission is not well founded. It is true that the prosecution has the onus probandi
of establish­ing the guilt of the accused and the weakness of the defense does
not relieve it of its responsibility (People vs. Cruz, 32 SCRA 181; People vs.
Pecato, 151 SCRA 14). In the case at
bar, the circumstances relied upon by the trial court formed one unbroken chain
which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the appellant, to
the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person (People vs. Lingao, 75 SCRA
130; People vs. Colinares, 163 SCRA 313).

Appellant’s allegation that the lower court merely provided a
hypothesis which is more conjectural than factual to take the place of absent
evidence, does not merit this Court’s attention.

While it is true that the testimony of Marilyn Merced dwells on
circumstantial facts which tend to prove appellant’s guilt, the same does not
weaken her testimony. For guilt may be
established through circumstantial evidence, provided the requisites set out in
Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court are present, namely: (1) there is
more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived
are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circum­stances is such as to
produce conviction beyond reasona­ble doubt (People vs. Alcantara, 163 SCRA
783; People vs. Fule, 206 SCRA 652).

Applying the above requisites, the circumstances established by the prosecution’s evidence and relied upon by
the trial court in arriving at its conclusion were as follows:

1. Only Nida and appellant were left in the Ampalayo house when
Marilyn left to buy coke at a nearby store.

2. There is a tall hollow block fence topped with barbed wire
surrounding the Ampalayo compound and only one main gate through which entry
may be made. The gate was not used for
entry when Marilyn left. Therefore, no
other person had access to the house during the time Marilyn was out. Appellant’s claim that there was a hole in
the back portion of the fence which was big enough for a person to enter, was
belied by the prosecu­tion witnesses who denied there was such a hole. The variance between the testimonies of the
appellant and his witnesses vis-a-vis, those of Marilyn and Mr. Ampa­layo
regarding the presence or absence of a hole in the hollow block fence was
correctly ruled upon by the trial court, thus:

“10. The
defense has harped on the alleged presence of a big hole in the Ampalayo
fence. Amadeo Abaquita, Eduardo
Briones, Decena and the accused said that a person could easily pass thru
it. Marilyn Merced, Cresencio Ampalayo
and Salvador Divinagracia, however, denied any such breach in the fence. As the defense witnesses could not have been
more familiar with the condition of that fence than Mr. Ampalayo and Marilyn
Merced, their testimony about that fence cannot be more accurate than the
latter’s.” (p. 35, Rollo.)

3. No outsiders could have entered the house through the back door
for it was closed and fitted with an automatic lock which could only be opened
from inside the house. And no one could
have entered the house through the kitchen windows for they were secured with
iron grills.

4. After a lapse of only about two (2) minutes from the time she
left to buy a bottle of coke, Marilyn returned and heard a woman screaming in
agony inside the Ampalayo house. When
she went inside, she saw a half-naked man clad only in shorts, stabbing Nida
Romano inside the toilet.

5. When Marilyn ran out of the house, terrified by the scene she
had witnessed, appellant, half-naked and bloody, chased her up to the gate of
their next-door neighbor, the Rizzaris.

6. Appellant’s shifting tales about the identity of Nida’s killer
exposed the falsity of his defense. At
first, he said he chased Marilyn because he suspected her of killing Nida. Later he alleged that he chased Marilyn
because he wanted her to help Nida. Still later, appellant alleged that two unidentified men stabbed Nida
inside the toilet.

7. Appellant’s admission that he did not help Estinozo and the
others carry Nida into the car of Ernesto Tolosa was a clear manifestation of
his guilty feelings. His explanation
that he did not like the smell of blood does not inspire belief for, according
to him, he even used his own T-shirt to wipe off the blood on Nida’s face and
neck.

8. The murder weapons – a screwdriver and knife – were found
outside the fence of the Ampalayo house. Their presence at or near the crime scene is incongruous with the appellant’s
theory that two intruders committed the crime for it would have been the height
of folly for such outsiders to leave their weapons behind to provide a clue to
their identities.

9. The screwdriver was identified by Mr. Ampalayo as his own tool,
which he kept in the sala of his house. If two intruders killed Nida they would have been armed with their own
weapons. The use of Mr. Ampalayo’s
screwdriver proves that it was used by someone who was already inside the
house, i.e., the accused. Since he
could not flee to avert suspicion, he got rid of both instruments of death by
throwing them over the fence.

10.The appellant’s two-intruder story conflicts with his initial
yarn that the reason why he chased and tried to drag Marilyn into the house was
because he believed she killed Nida.

The above circumstances were consistent with the conclusion that
it was the appellant who killed the hapless househelp (Dela Concepcion vs.
People, 173 SCRA 253; People vs. Alcantara, 163 SCRA 783).

Most of appellant’s assignments of error focus on the credibility
of the prosecution witnesses. It is
however “the province of the trial judge to rule on matters involving the
credibility of witnesses. His findings
thereon are entitled to the highest respect” (People vs. Abaya, 170 SCRA
691; People vs. Liston, 179 SCRA 415). The trial court noted that the defense version of the incident lacked
corroboration, was ab­surd, illogical, incredible and improbable, hence, it
could not prevail over the straightforward testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses (People vs. Lamog, 172 SCRA 342).

The alleged absence of motive on the part of the appellant does
not preclude the commission of the crime for we may take judicial notice of the
fact that persons have been killed or assaulted for less or no reason at all
(People vs. Laureta, Jr., 159 SCRA 256).

On the other hand, the absence of any improper motive on the part
of the prosecution witnesses to testify against the appellant (People vs.
Datahan, 157 SCRA 215), justified the trial court’s reliance on their evidence.

Since there is no showing of improper motive on the part of
Marilyn to testify against appellant, the fact that she is a niece of the
victim’s employer does not render her clear and positive testimony less worthy
of credit (People vs. Abonada, 169 SCRA 530). Her testimony was replete with details and she was totally coherent on
the witness stand.

However, the Court does not agree with the trial court’s finding
that the crime committed by the accused-appellant was murder, as charged in the
information, for there is no proof that treachery and/or evident premeditation,
the qualifying circumstances alleged in the information, attended its
commission. It is a settled rule that
the circumstances that would qualify a killing to murder must be proven as
indubitably as the crime itself (People vs. Vicente, 141 SCRA 347; citing U.S.
vs. Sellano, 10 Phil. 498 and U.S. vs. Bisandre, 40 Phil. 78).

“x x x. It is needless
to add that treachery cannot be deduced from mere presumption, much less from
sheer speculation. The same degree of
proof to dispel reasonable doubt is required before any conclu­sion may be
reached respecting the attendance of alevosia.” (People vs. Duero,
136 SCRA 515, 520.)

Neither can evident
premeditation be considered, absent a clear showing of:

“1. The time when the
offender determined to commit the crime;

“2. an act manifestly indi­cating that the
culprit had clung to its determination; and

“3. sufficient time elapsed between the
determination and the execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences
of his act.” (People vs. Pacada, 142 SCRA 427, 428.)

Absent treachery and/or evident premeditation in the killing of
the victim, the crime committed was only homicide, not murder. Since neither mitigating or aggravating
circumstance was alleged and proven, the penalty for homicide, which is reclusion
temporal, should be imposed its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty
should range from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor,
as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal,
as maximum.

The indemnity for the death of Nida Romano should be increased to
Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos in accordance with current jurisprudence
(People vs. Sison, 189 SCRA 643; People vs. Baguio, 196 SCRA 459; People vs.
Buka, 205 SCRA 567).

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is MODIFIED by finding
the appellant, Perfecto Briones, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Homicide. He is sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor,
as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal,
as maximum, and to indemnify the heirs of Nida Romano in the amount of
P50,000.00. Costs against the
appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Bellosillo, and
Quiason, JJ., concur.