PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SALVADOR BALIGOD, MACARIO MALAGYAB ALIAS BALILING AND TEN (10) JOHN DOES, ACCUSED. MACARIO MALAGYAB ALIAS BALILING, APPELLANT.

Salvador Baligod, Macario Malagyab alias Baliling, and ten other
persons whose identities and whereabouts are unknown were charged with the
crime of robbery with homicide in Criminal Case No. 17-87 of the Regional Trial
Court of the Second Judicial Region stationed in Tabuk, Kalinga-Apayao in an
Information which pertinently alleged:

That on or about January 14, 1987, at Barangay Cawagayan, Pinukpuk,
Kalinga-Apayao and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the
above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and helping one
another, with ten (10) others whose identities and whereabouts are still
unknown, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and by means
of force and violence take and with intent of gain and against the consent of
the owner took and carried away the following properties to wit:

Adidas shoes worth P380.00

2 Maong pants worth P300.00 and

Five Thousand One Hundred Pesos P5,100.00

or a total of P5,780.00, belonging to
Federico Narcisa to the damage and prejudice of the owner in the aforesaid
amount; that on the occasion of the said Robbery and for the purpose of
enabling them to take, steal and carry away the articles above-mentioned,
herein accused, in pursuance of their conspiracy did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously and with evident premeditation and taking advantage
of their superior number and strength and with intent to kill, sho[o]t Federico
Narcisa with different kinds of unlicensed firearms causing his instantaneous
death; and on the same occasion of the said robbery with homicide, the same
accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with
evident premeditation and with intent to kill sho[o]t George Narcisa, a son of
Federico, inflicting gunshot wounds upon the right side of his stomach and
right upper arm, which ordinarily would cause the death of said George Narcisa,
thus performing all the acts of execution which should have produced the crime
of robbery with homicide as a consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it
by reason of causes independent of the accused’s will, that is by the timely
and able medical assistance rendered to said George Narcisa which prevented his
death.

The crime is aggravated
by evident premeditation abuse
of superior strength, treachery and employment of craft.

(pp. 5-6, Rollo)

Both accused Baligod and Malagyab pleaded not guilty and after trial, the court a quo, on October 22, 1990, rendered
judgment, the dispositive portion of which
reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused SALVADOR BALIGOD and MACARIO MALAGYAB alias BALILING guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principals
of the crime of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE AND FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE under Article 294 par. 1 Revised Penal Code, sentencing each of the accused to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with the accessory penalties provided for by law, and to indemnify the heirs of Federico Narcisa jointly and severally the sum
of P30,000.00 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of
insolvency pursuant to Article 39
Revised Penal Code as amended by
RA 5465.

Both accused are further ordered to pay the amount of P5,780.00 to the heirs of Federico Narcisa which is the cash and the value of the
personal properties stolen by the said accused.

The detention of the accused starting from August 24,
1987 up to the present shall be deducted from the service of their sentence in accordance with Article 29 Revised
Penal Code as amended by RA 6127.

(pp. 50-51, Rollo)

Both accused appealed. However, accused Salvador Baligod later filed a motion withdrawing
his appeal which this Court granted on November 25, 1992 (pp. 69 and 99-A, Rollo). Thus, only the appeal of Macario Malagyab
remains to be disposed of. Said
appellant simply argues in his single assigned error that the prosecution
failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The summary by the Office of the Solicitor General of the
background facts of the case is supported by the evidentiary record, and for
this reason, the same is hereby adopted, to wit:

In the evening of January 13, 1987, George Narcisa slept in the
house of his cousin Antonio Narcisa, which is about two hundred (200) meters
from his own house in Cawagayan, Pinukpuk, Kalinga-Apayao (TSN, November 14,
1987, p. 37).

The following morning at around 6:15 A.M., George was roused from
sleep by someone kicking him and he saw a man, whom he later identified as
Salvador Baligod, and a companion pointing their guns at his face (TSN,
November 14, 1987, pp. 37-38). Salvador
Baligod had an Armalite Rifle while his companion, whom George Narcisa did not
recognize, had a .45 caliber pistol (TSN, November 14, 1987, pp. 38-39). The two had ten (10) other companions all of
whom were armed (TSN, November 14, 1987, pp. 39, 51). Some of the men wore masks (TSN, November 14, 1987, p. 51).

Salvador told George “We will go to your house” (TSN,
November 14, 1987, p. 39). George and
his cousin Antonio Narcisa were taken by Salvador and his companions to George
Narcisa’s house (TSN, November 14, 1987, p. 39). Eight (8) men went ahead while the remaining four walked behind
George (TSN, November 14, 1987, p. 55).

About twenty (20) meters from the house, Salvador ordered George to
call out his father (TSN, November 14, 1987, p. 40). George called for his father shouting “Papa, Papa”
(TSN, November 14, 1987, pp. 40, 56).

Inside the house, George’s sister Mildred and his father Federico
were having a cup of coffee when they heard George shouting “Papa,
Papa” (TSN, October 15, 1987, p. 4). As soon as Federico Narcisa came out of the house, Salvador shouted
“assault!” (TSN, November 14, 1987, p. 40) and Salvador’s companions
started shooting at Federico who died on the spot due to multiple gunshot
wounds (TSN, November 14, 1987, p. 40; Exhibit “A” and
“A-1”). The armed men then
turned their guns at George and shot him hitting him in the right side of his
body (TSN, November 14, 1987, p. 41). One bullet entered the back side of the right arm and exited in the
front part (TSN, November 14, 1987, p. 41). Another hit George in the hip and a third hit him in the shoulder below
the clavicle (TSN, November 14, 1987, p. 41).

Immediately after Mildred heard the gunshots, three (3) armed men
entered their house and pointed their guns at Mildred (TSN, October 15, 1987,
p. 5). They took Mildred out to the
porch and a fourth man who was wearing a mask that showed only his eyes and
mouth came and guarded her (TSN, October 15, 1987, pp. 5-8). The three men went back inside the house and
ransacked it (TSN, October 15, 1987, p. 15). They took cash totalling five thousand one hundred pesos (P5,100.00), a
pair of “adidas” shoes belonging to her father, and two pairs of
maong pants (TSN, October 15, 1987, pp. 14, 16). The masked man guarding Mildred at the porch talked to her and
said “Why is it that you are still here. Why did you not transfer – you should have built your house near the
road, you see what is happening now” (TSN, October 15, 1987, p. 8). Mildred recognized the masked man as
appellant Macario Malagyab whom she had known since 1977 when, as a jeepney
driver, appellant used to fetch her and George, then in high school, every
Friday afternoon from school and take her back every Sunday afternoon to the
Sta. Theresita Dormitory (TSN, October 15, 1987 pp. 5-8). Appellant used to talk and joke a lot with
his passengers (TSN, October 15, 1987, p. 8).

Another masked man came saying “Bakit ayaw buksan yong
baril?” (TSN, October 15, 1987, pp. 9, 10). Mildred answered “who told you that we have a gun (TSN,
October 15, 1987, p. 9)”. Whereupon the second masked man tried to lunge at her but the appellant
prevented him saying “Don’t do that because she’s a girl – she is a
woman” (TSN, October 15, 1987, p. 9).

George was lying down on
the ground after he was shot when he heard the assailants decide to
finish him off (TSN, November 14, 1987, p. 42). Upon hearing this, George decided to fight back. He immediately got up and grabbed a round
piece of wood to hit Baligod who stepped backwards about ten (10) meters to
avoid being hit. Baligod tripped and
fell down whereupon George threw the piece of wood at Baligod hitting the
latter on the left shoulder (TSN, November 14, 1987, pp. 42, 64-65). He ran inside their house, which was only
twenty (20) meters away, just as he heard the sound of gunshots behind him
(TSN, November 14, 1987, p. 43).

His sister Mildred was at the porch (TSN, November 14, 1987, p. 43)
and inside their house George found that their belongings had been ransacked
and topsy-turvey (TSN, November 14, 1987, p. 42). George grabbed a bolo and went out again and those who were
chasing him stepped back upon seeing him (TSN, November 14, 1987, p. 43). They retreated while firing at George but
they missed (TSN, November 14, 1987, p. 44). George chased the attackers who were shooting as they retreated but
about fifty meters from the house he became dizzy and collapsed (TSN, November
14, 1987, p. 44). He regained
consciousness only at the hospital.

Antonio Narcisa was also hit as a result of the gunfire, sustaining
two gunshot wounds, one in the arm and another on his chest.

After the attackers had fled, George was taken to the Provincial
Hospital in Bulanao where he stayed for sixteen (16) days before being
transferred to the Cagayan Valley Regional Hospital in Tuguegarao where he
stayed for twenty-five (25) days or until February 24, 1987 (TSN, November 14,
1987, pp. 43, 44).

Mildred told her
brother George that she knew one of the men to be “Baliling”, a
person who was also known to George, but they did not report this to the police
because the man was still at large (TSN, November 14, 1987, pp. 70-71). They informed their mother and their Manong
about Baliling but agreed to keep the matter to themselves for the meantime out
of fear of reprisal (TSN, November 14, 1987, pp. 71-72).

On June 15, 1987, or about five months after the incident, George
and Mildred who were now residing in Pantikian, Kalinga­-Apayao (TSN, Oct. 15,
1987, pp. 3, 32) heard over the “Radyo Ng Bayan” program an
announcement that certain members of the “Kurakot” gang were
apprehended by PC soldiers and that the victims were requested to come and
identify them (TSN, November 14, 1987, p. 44).

On the same day, George went to the PC barracks where he saw and
identified Salvador Baligod from among the nine (9) people arrested by the PC
(TSN, November 14, 1987, pp. 45, 46). On June 18, 1987, Mildred went to the PC barracks and identified
appellant as one of the twelve men who shot her father (TSN, October 15, 1987,
p. 16). Appellant denied the accusation
and told Mildred that he was in Manila at the time of the incident (TSN,
October 15, 1987, p. 11). Their conversation confirmed her conclusion that
the masked man who guarded her was appellant Macario Malagyab (TSN,
October 15, 1987, p. 11). (pp. 5-11,
Appellee’s Brief)

Appellant assails the testimony of prosecution witnesses Mildred
Narcisa and George Narcisa that appellant was one of the 12 armed men who
ransacked their house and killed their father Federico Narcisa on the ground
that their testimony as to the clothes he (appellant) was wearing at the time
of the incident is conflicting. Mildred
Narcisa testified that appellant was wearing a long-sleeve shirt and maong
pants while George Narcisa testified that appellant was wearing a checkered
short-sleeve shirt with maong pants. This inconsistency is a minor matter which does not militate against the
veracity of Mildred Narcisa and George Narcisa. Inconsistencies on minor details do not indicate prevarication
and will not adversely affect the credibility of witnesses (People vs.
Segwaben, 194 SCRA 239 [1991]).

In another flimsy attempt to discredit the testimony of Mildred
and George, appellant points out that their testimony do not tally as to the
exact number of persons presented to them at the PC barracks. There is no conflict between the testimony of Mildred and that of George for the
simple reason that they did not go to the barracks on the same day and,
therefore, would not have seen the same persons detained or even the same
number of persons, detained or otherwise, who were presented as possible
suspects.

Appellant casts doubt on Mildred’s testimony that she recognized
appellant by way of his voice despite the fact that the man she identified as
appellant was wearing a mask during the incident. Identification by the sound of the voice of the person identified
is sufficient and acceptable means of identification where it is established
that the witness and the accused had known each other personally and closely
for a number of years (U.S. vs. Manabat, 7 Phil. 209 [1906]). It is not disputed that Mildred had known
appellant since 1977, or ten years prior to the assault, when Mildred regularly
took and rode appellant’s Ford Fiera to and from school for a number of years. On these occasions, appellant used to engage
Mildred in conversation, exchanging jokes with her and his other
passengers. Mildred entertained no
doubts whatsoever as to the identity of appellant. Immediately after the incident she told her brother that one of
the masked men was appellant. When she
went to the PC barracks, and conversed with appellant and heard his voice,
their conversation bolstered her conclusion that appellant was one of the
masked men.

Furthermore, the statements and behavior of the masked man who
guarded Mildred attest to acquaintance of long standing with Mildred. Thus, the masked man who guarded Mildred
asked her the following questions:

“Why is it that you are still here? Why did you not transfer? – you should have built your house near the road, you see what is
happening now.” (TSN, October 15, 1987, p. 8).

The foregoing statements of the masked man clearly indicate that
he knew the Narcisas and was aware that they had always lived far from the
road, circumstances that appellant could have known only because of his long
acquaintance with the Narcisas and the fact that he had driven Mildred to and
from school. By imputing the tragedy
that befell the Narcisas to their own failure to move their residence closer to
the road, the masked man appeared to deplore the fact that their victims were
the Narcisas, especially Mildred whom he had known for a long time, and whom he
protected from injury. When another
masked man lunged at Mildred, the masked man who guarded her intervened and
told the attacking masked man not to hurt Mildred as she is a woman. All these clearly indicate the familiarity
and acquaintanceship between Mildred and the masked man whom she identified as
the accused-appellant.

Mildred’s failure to immediately disclose to the authorities that
one of the masked men was accused-appellant does not detract from the veracity
of her testimony. The armed men who
killed her father were vicious killers and she was obviously fearful that to
identify appellant would alert the others who might cause her harm. Delay or vacillation in making an accusation
does not impair the credibility of the witness if such delay is satisfactorily
explained (People vs. Elizaga, 73 SCRA 524 [1976]; People vs. Roxas,
73 SCRA 583 [1976]). Mildred’s failure
to immediately reveal to the authorities the identity of appellant is fully
justified under the circumstance of the case. In one case, a delay of thirty-five days before the victim reported the
sexual assault upon her was not considered an unreasonable delay (People vs.
Santiago, 197 SCRA 556 [1991]). Tardiness in making an accusation due to fear of reprisal does not
impair the credibility of a witness (People vs. Artieda, 90 SCRA 144
[1979]). Anyway, soon after hearing
over the radio that certain members of the “Kurakot” gang had been
apprehended and that possible victims were requested to identify the
malefactors, when thereby her fear of reprisal had been dispelled, Mildred went
to the PC barracks and identified appellant as one of the robbers.

In the face of the positive identification of accused-appellant
by Mildred, the defense of alibi put forth by appellant cannot prevail (People
vs. Esmael, 37 SCRA 601 [1971]; People vs. Carandang, 52 SCRA 259 [1973]). At any rate, this Court has consistently hewed to the rule that findings
of fact of the judge who tried the case and heard the witnesses should
not be disturbed on appeal, unless there are substantial facts or
circumstances, which if properly considered, might affect the result of the case
(People vs. Brioso, 37 SCRA 336 [1971]). A painstaking search of the record fails to unearth the presence
of any fact or circumstance of such weight and significance which would
sufficiently negate the correctness of the findings of fact of the trial court.

WHEREFORE, with the modification that the civil indemnity
is increased to P50,000.00, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in all
other respects.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Romero, and Vitug, JJ., concur.