PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAIME LAURORA, ACCUSED, TEODORO “RICO” RAQUION, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the decision* dated March
11, 1991 of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 3, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, this
Court finds the accused Teodorico ‘Rico’ Raquion guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of MURDER and imposes upon him the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
with the consequential indemnification of the heirs of the deceased Ricardo
Calda, Jr. in the sum of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00).

“It appearing that the accused Jaime Laurora is still at
large, let the corresponding alias order of arrest be issued.

“SO ORDERED.” (p. 27, Rollo)

The information dated March 25, 1987 filed against the accused in
Criminal Case No. 3872 alleges:

“UNDERSIGNED Assistant Provincial Fiscal accuses JAIME LAURORA
and TEODORICO ‘RICO’ RAQUION of the crime of MURDER, committed as follows:

‘That on or about September 20, 1986 about 12:00 o’clock midnight,
at Pingan, Mancao, Rapu­-Rapu, Albay, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of
the Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, with intent to kill, treachery,
and conspiring together for a common purpose, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, hack and hit with bolos, deadly weapons,
RICARDO CALDA, inflicting fatal injury on the right side of the neck involving
the cervical vertebrae and cord, which resulted to and directly caused the
death of said RICARDO CALDA.’

“CONTRARY TO LAW.” (p. 19, Rollo)

The prosecution presented five (5) witnesses who corroborated one
another in the following summarized evidence upon which the court a quo
based its finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt:

On or about midnight of September 20, 1986, the deceased Ricardo
Calda and his uncle Quintin Vargas attended a birthday dance party in Sitio
Pingan, Mancao, Rapu-Rapu, Albay. Around midnight, the duo went out of the dance hall to proceed to a
nearby house for the preparation of snacks. Ricardo Calda walked ahead by about four (4) meters from Quintin
Vargas. All of a sudden two (2) men
were seen walking towards them, consecutively hacked Ricardo Calda with a bolo
called “ginunting” which each man carried. The first hack of the first man named Jaime Laurora, Ricardo
Calda was able to avoid by instinctively ducking but the next hack of the
second man named Teodorico “Rico” Raquion, he was not able to avoid
as it was executed a split second just after the first hack. Ricardo Calda sustained a big wound at the
back portion of his neck which almost severed from his body which wound caused
instant death. Immediately after the
falling to the ground of the deceased, the two killers fled towards the
direction of the seashore.

The defense presented alibi as its exculpatory factor. Accused-appellant Teodorico Raquion said
that he was at the dance hall during the time when there were two (2) persons
which he together with two (2) other witnesses saw at around midnight, chasing
each other, one named later on to be Ricardo Calda who was armed with an arrow
and the other one, identified as one Celestino Springael, armed with a bolo or
“ginunting”. Nobody on the
side of the defense saw what happened to the alleged two (2) persons chasing
each other but since both died later, the defense wanted to make it appear thru
presumption that the two (2) Ricardo Calda and Celestino Springael killed each
other. When one witness was shown photo
of the victim with another person, it was the other person and not the victim
who was pointed to. There was also a
testimony of the father of Celestino Springael that his son who died after some
days later, in the Albay Provincial Hospital of the wound caused by the arrow
imbedded in his left armpit informed him that he was pierced by the deceased
Ricardo Calda who had already been dead some three (3) days thence.

For the rebuttal evidence, the prosecution recalled the local
Barangay Captain Hospicio Barbasina who categorically stated that the deceased
Ricardo Calda was already dead at around 12 midnight of September 20, 1986 just
beside the dance hall, while the next day, he investigated the incident involving
Celestino Springael in a place quite far from the dance hall and this Celestino
Springael narrated to said Barangay Captain, in the presence of the Barangay
Secretary that he was attacked the previous night by several men whom he did
not know, while towing his banca at the deeper part of the seashore. Then he was hit by an arrow and left hanging
at the side of his banca until he was drawn ashore the next morning when it was
already high tide.

Accused-Appellant Teodorico Raquion thru the Public Assistance
Office of the Dept. of Justice interposed the present appeal with six (6)
assignment of errors alleging that the court a quo erred in (1)
lending credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Quintin Vargas and
Alberto Bercasio in the face of marked inconsistencies and improbabilities
defying all ordinary human conduct, behaviour and experience; and in treating
said inconsistencies as merely minor ones; (2) adjudging as ‘more credible’ the
testimony of barangay captain Hospicio Barbasina over that of Mauro
Springael’s, despite its apparent falsity, infirmity and improbability; and in
anchoring such finding on a mere presumption; (3) in ruling against the
admissibility of Celestino Springael’s testimony apropos of the cause of the
victim’s death on the ground that it is hearsay evidence, being in the nature
of a dying declaration of a third person; (4) positing that the
accused-appellant interposed the flimsy defense of alibi; (5) finding the
accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged despite want of proof beyond
reasonable doubt pinning responsibility on him; and (6) qualifying the crime to
murder when the circumstances qualifying it as such were not established by
proof beyond reasonable doubt.

A diligent and concentrated study of the case reveals that the
adjectives used in attacking the decision through the assignment of errors are
grossly exaggerated and full of misrepresentations. Obviously, the resolution of the same boils down to proving the
credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution which is
very easy to prove. But at this point,
we are once more forced to reiterate the well-settled doctrine in our
jurisdiction that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of the
witnesses are generally accorded great weight and respect by the appellate
courts except when the trial court has overlooked some very material and
substantial facts that might alter the questioned judgment (Pio v. Realon, 99
SCRA 422).

Corollarily, the Court has also consistently ruled that credibility
is a matter that peculiarly falls within the province of the trial judge who
had first-hand opportunity to watch and observe the demeanor and behavior of
witnesses, both for the prosecution and the defense, at the time of their
testimony (Ibid.).

We find no cogent reason in the case at bar to deviate from the
aforestated rulings as therein court findings are well-supported by evidence
adduced during the trial. Neither does
it appear that the witnesses had any untoward motives or reasons to falsely
testify against the accused-appellant.

The defense put up by accused-appellant Teodorico Raquion
consisting of the very weak alibi that he merely stayed and danced inside the
dance hall when the crime happened some four (4) or five (5) meters away from
his alleged body location can not prevail over the very positive identification
of him by two (2) eye­witnesses Quintin Vargas and Alberto Bercasio, thus:

Re: Testimony of Quintin Vargas:

FISCAL TOLOSA:

Q.   What
was Jaime Laurora doing at the time when Teodorico Raquion hacked Ricardo
Calda?

A.    He
also hacked Ricardo Calda but he was not able to hit him.

Q.   By
the way, who of these two accused first hacked the victim, Ricardo Calda?

A.    The
first who hacked Ricardo Calda was Jaime Laurora.

Q.   But
Ricardo was not hit?

A.    He
was not hit.

Q.   And
then after Ricardo Calda was not hit, who again hacked Calda?

A.    Teodorico
Raquion, sir.

x x x             x x x                 x x x

Q.   What
happened to Ricardo Calda after Rico Raquion hacked Calda?

A.    Suddenly
he fell on the ground.

Q.   Why
did Ricardo Calda fall on the ground?

A.    Because
of the wound that was inflicted on his neck. (Witness points to the back portion of his neck).

Q.   Where
was Teodorico Raquion in relation to Ricardo Calda, when Raquion hacked Calda?

A.    He
was at the back of the victim.

Q.   Now,
after Ricardo Calda was hit, after being hacked by Raquion, what transpired
next?

A.    The
two suddenly left. (TSN, pp. 7-8)

and Re: Testimony of
Alberto Bercasio:

Q. And what transpired next?

A.    While
answering the call of nature, I turned my head and I saw two persons going to
the direction of the dance hall.

Q.   And
what did you notice of these persons when you saw them?

A. While these two persons whom I saw were
going to the direction of the dance hall, they also met two persons going to
the opposite direction and then there and then I saw that somebody was hacked.

Q.   Now,
what did you do after you noticed that somebody was hacked?

A. When I saw somebody was hacked, I immediately ran for cover because there
was a big stone there. I hid my self
there because I was shocked.

FISCAL TOLOSA:

Q.   Those
persons you said passed behind you when you were answering the call of nature,
did you recognize those persons?

A.    I
recognized them after passing me because there was light.

Q.   Why,
what was the light that evening within your area?

A.    Flourescent.

Q.   How
was that flourescent lamp placed in that vicinity?

A.    The
Flourescent was installed at the edge of the house of Bibon.

Q.   Did
you notice what these two persons were carrying at the time they were passing
by you?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   What
were they carrying?

A.    It
is a bolo.

Q.   You
said a while ago that you recognized these persons carrying bolos, do you know
their names?

A.    No,
sir.

Q.   Why
do you say that you recognized these persons?

A.    I
know them because they passed the place where it was lighted. If I could see these persons, I could
recognize them.

Q. Now, please look around in court if you
could still recognize these persons you saw with bolos when you were answering
the call of nature?

A.    Yes,
he is around.

Q.   Please
point to this person whom you recognize as one of those persons carrying bolos?

(Witness
pointing to a man wearing multi-colored T-shirt and whom when asked answered by
the name of Teodorico Raquion). (TSN.
pp. 88-91)

In a string of cases, alibi is considered an inherently weak
defense and in this case unavailing, as the accused-appellants have already
been positively identified by eye-witnesses to be the real perpetrators of the
crime. Besides, for alibi to prosper,
it is not enough that accused-appellants are able to show that they were
somewhere else when the crime was committed but they must likewise demonstrate
that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the
crime, which requisites are all absent here (Peo v. Mandapat 196 SCRA 157).

The characteristics of the assigned errors alleged by the counsel
of the defense boomeranged at them. The
testimonies of the witnesses are the ones that are “marked by
improbabilities defying all ordinary human conduct, behaviour and
experience”. Take the example of
accused-appellants Teodorico Raquion together with Domingo Bradiceno. Both stated that they saw two (2) persons
whom they claim later on to turn out to be Celestino Springael and the victim
Ricardo Calda chasing each other at midnight of September 20, 1986, around the
dancing hall, claiming that they did not know what happened afterwards to the
two chasers, and that they never bothered to know. This is incredible and beyond ordinary human conduct. In a small sitio where everybody (almost)
knows everyone else and where every incident however minor is considered a
piece of news and/or gossip, this momentous and big event between the two (2)
supposed barrio mates will never be kept a secret to anybody. If the two (2) supposed protagonists really
chased each other with a bolo and a deadly arrow, something explosive is really
bound to happen. Further, if the two
(2) witnesses, the accused-appellant and Domingo Bradocinio did not bother to
know what happened, then they would have known what happened anyway considering
how news and events spread (like fire) in sitios or barrios like Pingan,
Mancao, at Rapu-Rapu, Albay. The truth
of the matter is that Teodorico Raquion with his companion (at-large) Jaime
Laurora conspired to murder the victim Ricardo Calda whom they knew will be
attending the dancing party, due to an old grudge related to a past drinking
spree incident (TSN, p. 48).

Another event defying ordinary human nature which is very
disadvantageous to the defense is the testimony of the father of Celestino
Springael, a victim of another violent incident. It is inconceivable that the father of the deceased Celestino
Springael, who died some two (2) or three (3) days after the murder involved in
this instant case, never knew that his very own son Celestino was already
dying. In small places like the sitios
and barrios involved in this murder charge, the father and the mother, if still
alive are ordinarily the first to be notified of what grave accidents or
life-threatening incidents happen to their children. It is therefore unbelievable that witness for the defense Mauro
Springael, came to the Albay Provincial Hospital not to see nor visit his dying
son, but only to visit a nephew. And it
was in this casual visit of a wounded nephew which he first came to know of,
much, much ahead of the news about his own son’s hospitalization, that he came
to hear of the report that there was a person in the emergency room dying of a
wound caused by an arrow imbedded near his left armpit. It is beyond human common sense that this
piece of news made the same gossiped about.

Flight is an indicium of guilt. Accused-appellant Teodorico Raquion was caught in Baliwag, Bulacan but
as to accused-appellant Jaime Laurora, the authorities were not as lucky. If the accused-appellants were clean and
never took part in the murder of the doceased, then they would have faced
bravely and with integrity the law and their accusers right there in their
barrio. Instead they hid elsewhere.

The crime committed is murder since the killing was performed
with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the deceased Ricardo Calda
having been hacked to death by the accused in a very sudden and surprising
manner, without giving him any chance to defend himself.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Nocon, JJ., concur.

* Penned by Judge Wenceslao R. Villanueva,
Jr.