PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RES DELAVIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The accused-appellant was charged in the Regional Trial Court of Masbate with
the murder of Ricardo Rojas and the attempted murder of Romana Rojas.^[1] After a joint trial of the two cases, he
was convicted of both offenses in a decision^[2] he now asks us to reverse on the ground of
insufficiency of the evidence against him.

That evidence consists mainly
of the testimony of two alleged eyewitnesses to the crimes and of another
witness who corroborated the former.  For his part, the accused-appellant
offered the defense of denial and presented his own witnesses to support
him.

According to Deolinda Rojas, daughter-in-law of the victims, the
accused-appellant suddenly barged into their store in the early morning of
December 12, 1981, and upon seeing him, Romana Rojas immediately shouted in
warning, “Ricardo evitar!” Thereupon, Delavin pointed the gun he was carrying at
Romana and pulled the trigger four times, but luckily the gun did not fire. 
Ricardo Rojas then appeared and asked, “What is that?” The accused-appellant 
immediately shot him, hitting him in the right upper side of his body and (as
the autopsy^[3] later revealed) instantly
killing him.  Delavin then turned on Deolinda, but she had the presence of mind
to throw at him some empty bottles that were at hand and then to run upstairs
and escape through the rooftop.^[4]

This testimony was corroborated by
the widow, Romana, who added that when Delavin entered their store at about 4:30
o’clock that morning, he shouted, “Where are you, I will kill you all” and that
when he pointed the gun at her and squeezed the trigger he also said, “I will
kill you.”^[5] After the shooting of her
husband, she hid herself while Delavin pursued Deolinda who, fortunately, was
able to escape.  Like Deolinda, the widow said she recognized the
accused-appellant because they had known him for seven years and they could
identify him that tragic morning because the store was lighted by a Petromax
lamp and two kerosene lamps.^[6]

Artemio Deocariza, Jr. did not
witness the shooting but merely heard a gunshot from his house which was about
fifteen meters away from the Rojas store.  He said that when he later went down
to the store he saw Ricardo Rojas lying on the floor.  He said he also saw
Delavin then, with a gun and walking toward a house of one of the neighbors, but
later, he affirmed his earlier affidavit and said he saw Delavin aiming his gun
at the head of Ricardo Rojas when the latter was already prostrate on the cement
floor of the store.  He further declared that the day before the incident, he
saw the accused-appellant pointing his gun at Ricardo Rojas and at his
store.^[7]

The court rejects the
testimony of this last witness as immaterial and self-contradictory, not to say
inconclusive.

We also rebuff the accused-appellant’s denial as, apart
from the fact that it cannot stand as against the forthright testimony of the
prosecution eyewitnesses, the tale he tells is inherently improbable and was
most likely contrived.  He says he heard a gunshot from the direction of the
Rojas store and then a woman screaming and shouting inside the place, which was
only about twelve to fifteen meters away from his house.  Three minutes later he
left his house to proceed to the pier where he was to take the motor launch to
Manila.  On the way, he saw Deocariza and his father looking at the Rojas store,
but it did not occur to him to ask what had happened or to go to the place and
see for himself.^[8] Unnaturally, his
curiosity was not at all aroused by the unusual sounds.  His attitude was one of
supreme indifference.  A gunshot, screams and shouting at the house of a
neighbor left him completely cold.  It is also significant that when one week
later his wife informed him by long-distance telephone that he was suspected of
the killing, he nevertheless remained in Manila — possibly to hide — until he
was finally arrested and brought back to Masbate.^[9]

The trial court correctly
disbelieved the testimony of defense witness Aproniano Villamor, who declared
that the killer was not Delavin but another person, a mysterious stranger he met
coming from the Rojas house on that fateful morning who pointed a gun at him and
thereafter “fled toward the hill of Tara Street.”^[10] Commenting on his testimony, the trial
judge observed:  “Aproniano Villamor, who claims to have seen the real assassin
did not even reveal this matter to any one in the market after the incident in
the pier where he was working at the time, and to any one in Mobo, Masbate, when
he went home on the same day, nor to any police authorities.  It is said that ‘a
witness who keeps silent is incredible.’ (People v. Madarang, 31 SCRA 148).”^[11]

The trial judge had the
opportunity to observe the witnesses personally and to determine by his own
firsthand impressions the credibility of their testimony as indicated by their
demeanor on the stand, the forthrightness of their declarations, the shades of
tone and word and pause drawing the line between fact and fabrication.  We
sustain his findings on this matter, there being no showing that he has abused
his discretion or had no basis for his conclusions.  And while it is true that,
as pointed out by the defense,^[12] there
are a number of discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses, we agree that these lapses are only on minor details that
do not detract from, but in fact, by their very imperfection, strengthen its
veracity.

There is, of course, no need to prove motive where the culprit
has been positively identified by eyewitnesses.^[13] But in any event, for whatever it may be
worth, evidence was also adduced showing that Delavin harbored resentments
against the victims because they had refused to extend him a loan of
P10,000.00.^[14]

Treachery attended
the commission of both offenses as there was a sudden and unexpected attack that
rendered the victims unable to defend themselves.^[15] “The killing is qualified with treachery
when the shooting was sudden and unexpected and the victims were not in a
position to defend themselves.”^[16] The
sudden and unexpected attack was also deliberate.^[17] In the case of the attempted murder, the
intent to kill was amply established by Delavin himself when he said, “I will
kill you” as he squeezed the trigger.  Correctly, evident premeditation, not
having been proved, was not appreciated.

We sustain the lower court on
the civil damages due, to wit:

“It was established in this case that at the time of the death of
the victim, he was 50 years old and engaged in business where he derived a
monthly income of P10,000.00.  As a result of his death, the family lost their
business.  Taking the average span of life of a Filipino, he may be expected to
live for six (6) years more.  (Merchan vs. Mendoza, 24 SCRA 888) The
yearly income of the deceased is around P120,000.00, less expenses necessary in
the creation of such earnings or income and less living and other incidental
expenses in amount of P60,000.00, thus, his yearly net income is P60,000.00
multiplied by 6 years, the heirs of the deceased should be entitled to the loss
of earning capacity in the amount of P360,000.00 pursuant to Article 2202, in
relation to Articles 2205 and 2206, New Civil Code, and People vs.
Pentola, 25 SCRA 468.”

and on the dispositive portion of the decision reading as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder in Crim. Case No. 3813 and hereby
sentences him to a penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the
heirs of the deceased in the amount of P30,000.00; moral damages loss of earning
in the amount of P360,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, together with all the accessory penalties provided for by law, and
to pay the costs.  In Crim. Case No.3814, the Court finds the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted Murder and hereby sentences
him to an indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS of prision
correccional as minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision
mayor as maximum, together with all the accessory penalties provided for by
law, and to pay the costs.”

One of the arguments invoked by the defense was that the
accused-appellant, knowing that he could easily be identified, would not have
committed the offenses openly but would have chosen a more subdued place and
hour to prevent his discovery.  In reply, the Solicitor General says:  “Time has
changed a great deal.  The brazenness with which crimes are committed in broad
daylight are too numerous to be recounted.” We agree, with not a little sense of
sadness.  Vanished, indeed, are those gentler yesterdays when one’s neighbor
was, as certain as the break of dawn, a
friend.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is affirmed
in toto, with costs against the accused-appellant.

SO
ORDERED.

Yap, (Chairman), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Feliciano, Gancayco, and
Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

^[2]
Ibid., pp. 21-22.

^[3] Id., p. 15.

^[4] Id., p. 13.

^[5] Id., p. 14.

^[6] Id., p. 14.

^[7] Id., p. 15.

^[8] Id., pp. 15-16.

^[9] Id., p. 16.

^[10] Id., pp. 16-17.

^[11] Id., p. 20.

^[12] Appellant’s Brief, pp. 2-5.

^[13] People vs. Soriano, 134 SCRA
542.

^[14] Rollo, p. 14;
pp. 19-20.

^[15] People vs.
Gamut, 118 SCRA 35; People vs. Canette, 129 SCRA 452; People
vs. Dofilez, 130 SCRA 603; People vs. Maruhom, 132 SCRA 116;
People vs. Beltran, 137 SCRA 508.

^[16] People vs. Pasco, Jr., 137 SCRA
1377; People vs. Gida, 102 SCRA 70; People vs. Candado, 84
SCRA 508.

^[17] People vs.
Lorenzo, 132 SCRA 17; People vs. Tajon, 128 SCRA 656; People
vs. Villanueva, 130 130 SCRA 75; People vs. Calicdan, 138 SCRA
385; People vs. Gamut, supra.