THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ADRIANO AMONCIO Y OLANTIGUE, EMEGDIO AMONCIO Y OLANTIGUE AND SILVESTRE AMONCIO Y TAGLE ACCUSED, ADRIANO AMONCIO Y OLAN…

People versus Amoncio

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted three members of one family, Adriano Amoncio, his brother Emigdio Amoncio, and Silvestre Amoncio, the nephew of both, for a single violent incident that took place one evening in November 1981 near a cockpit in Pilar, Bohol. Two separate informations were filed: one for murder, for the killing of Pablito Perocho, and one for frustrated murder, for the stabbing of Jose Aboabo. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision several doctrines tested again and again in criminal law and evidence: the weight of a dying declaration, the standards for the defense of alibi, the treatment of hearsay and of out-of-court statements that are not offered by the declarant himself, and the deference appellate courts give to the trial court's assessment of credibility. It also illustrates how the civil indemnity for death was fixed in the era before current jurisprudence raised it.

Procedural History

Two informations were filed against the accused, one charging Adriano and Emigdio with murder, and the other charging Silvestre and Adriano with frustrated murder. Because both cases arose from the same incident, the trial court tried them jointly. After trial on the merits, the Court of First Instance of Bohol, sitting in the City of Tagbilaran, rendered its decision in January 1984, convicting all the accused as charged. Adriano was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for murder and to an indeterminate prison term for frustrated murder; Emigdio was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for murder; and Silvestre was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term for frustrated murder, with credit for preventive imprisonment. The trial court also ordered the accused to indemnify the heirs of Pablito Perocho and to pay Jose Aboabo actual and moral damages, with costs. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in September 1986.

Facts

About six o'clock in the evening of November 29, 1981, people were leaving the cockpit at Bagumbayan, Pilar, Bohol, walking home in groups. The first group moved ahead. About ten meters behind walked Jose Aboabo, Adriano Amoncio, and Pablito Perocho, singing in trio with their arms over one another's shoulders. A third group followed a little behind. As the second group neared the scene, Adriano shouted, "Bagdoki do Teban," meaning "Hit me, Teban." He then separated himself from his companions, drew a dagger, and stabbed Pablito from the back. On that signal, Emigdio and Silvestre emerged from behind a tree at the side of the road and rushed at Pablito and Jose. Emigdio stabbed Pablito at the back below the nape, and Silvestre stabbed Jose on the left side of the chest. Adriano then reached Jose and stabbed him in the left armpit. Jose ran, with Adriano chasing him, until Godofredo Perocho, Pablito's brother, came back toward the group; Adriano then fled.

Godofredo found Pablito prostrate and gravely wounded. Asked who had stabbed him, Pablito answered, "Sila si Adring Amoncio may nagdengab ako," meaning "They, Adring Amoncio stabbed me," Adring being Adriano's nickname. Pablito died on the way to the hospital. Jose was found unconscious and was hospitalized for eighteen days. The physician found a single stab wound on Jose that punctured the liver and the lungs. The post-mortem examination of Pablito showed two stab wounds, the one at the right lumbar region being fatal. The killing was traced to Pablito's illicit relation with Silvestre's wife before she took her own life in June 1981.

For the defense, Adriano denied stabbing anyone and claimed he had merely tried to pacify a fight and then reported the matter to the police. Silvestre presented a witness to show he had been working in a bakery in Butuan City from August 1981 to February 1982. Emigdio invoked alibi, claiming he was harvesting rice in a barangay six kilometers from the scene. The trial court convicted all of them, and the case reached the Supreme Court on appeal.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution's version of the incident over the defenses of denial and alibi.
• Whether or not the dying declaration of Pablito Perocho, identifying Adriano as his assailant, is admissible and entitled to weight.
• Whether or not the alleged out-of-court statements attributed to Jose Aboabo, naming other persons as his attacker, create a reasonable doubt as to the identity of the assailants.
• Whether or not the defenses of alibi of Emigdio and Silvestre may be credited.
• Whether or not the civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of the deceased should be increased.

Applicable Provisions

Although the decision does not set out the text of the governing rules, it applies the settled rule on alibi, which it states as follows:

Being easily fabricated, the defense of alibi must be established by evidence clear and free from doubt and bias.

This rule bears directly on the alibi of Emigdio and Silvestre, which the Court rejected for want of convincing proof.

The Court likewise applies the rule on the weight of the trial court's findings on credibility, which it states in these words:

It is well-settled that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, the trial court's findings are given great weight on appeal.

This is the standard that guided the Court in affirming the conviction.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the issue rested on credibility and that the prosecution's version deserved more credence. Jose Aboabo was not only an eyewitness but a direct victim, and he had known the appellants since they were young, so his identification could hardly be doubted. Adriano's denial was self-serving, and a negative assertion cannot prevail over the positive testimony of Jose and the dying declaration of Pablito.

On the second issue, the Court sustained the dying declaration. Pablito made it under the consciousness of an impending death, given the seriousness of the second wound and the fact that he died shortly afterward on the way to the hospital. It therefore stood against Adriano's denial.

On the third issue, the Court held that the alleged inconsistent statements had no probative value. The affidavit of Quiliano Butron was hearsay because he was never presented in court to confirm it. The testimony of Faustino Deganso recounted only part of what he heard Jose say before a crowd in the public market. And the testimony of Amado Bagtasa was qualified later in his own testimony, where he said Jose was merely suspecting that Emigdio was among those who stabbed him.

On the fourth issue, the Court rejected the alibis. Emigdio's claim that he took supper at nine o'clock was contradicted by his host, who testified that supper was served at seven. A witness, Faustino Deganso, testified that he saw Emigdio hiding behind a tree near the scene at about six in the evening and identified him by flashlight. Silvestre's alibi was weak and could not prevail over Jose's positive identification of him as the one who stabbed Jose.

On the fifth issue, the Court affirmed the conviction but increased the indemnity for the heirs of Pablito Perocho from twelve thousand pesos to thirty thousand pesos.

Doctrine

First, a dying declaration made under the consciousness of an impending death is admissible and carries great weight, and it may prevail over the accused's bare denial. Second, alibi is easily fabricated and must be established by evidence clear and free from doubt and bias; it cannot overcome positive identification by an eyewitness who is himself a victim. Third, an affidavit whose affiant is not presented in court is hearsay and has no probative value, and a statement that is qualified later in the same testimony must be read as a whole. Fourth, when the issue is credibility of witnesses, the trial court's findings are given great weight on appeal absent cogent reasons to disturb them. Fifth, the civil indemnity for death is fixed by the Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and may be increased on appeal even as the conviction is affirmed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction in all respects, except that it increased the indemnity for the heirs of Pablito Perocho from twelve thousand pesos to thirty thousand pesos.

Remember This

Memorize the line that alibi, being easily fabricated, must be established by evidence clear and free from doubt and bias, and that it cannot prevail over positive identification. Examiners use this case for the requisites and weight of a dying declaration, for the treatment of hearsay affidavits and qualified testimony, and for the rule that the trial court's credibility findings are accorded great weight on appeal.