G.R. Nos. 98152-53. October 26, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARMANDO PASILIAO Y GUTIERREZ ALIAS “MANDO” AND TITO PASILIAO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
CAMPOS, JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the Joint Decision*
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the First Judicial Region, Branch 44,
Dagupan City in Criminal Case No. D-9035 finding the accused Armando Pasiliao
and Tito Pasiliao guilty of Murder and sentencing them to Reclusion Perpetua
and to pay an indemnity of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased Dominador Lalata; and in Criminal Case
No. D-9357 finding the accused Armando
Pasiliao guilty of Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions and
sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of from 17 years and 4 months to 20 years, plus costs.
The facts, as found by the trial court and as testified to by two
eyewitnesses, Ronald Broquel and Helen Lalata, are as follows:
On December 6, 1988, at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening, the
deceased Dominador Lalata was in front of the store of one Lolita Lalata at
Salaan, Mangaldan, Pangasinan, Dominador
was drinking nipa wine with Ronald Broquel, Arturo Cendaña, and a few others,
when the accused-appellants Tito Pasiliao and Arturo Pasiliao arrived less than an hour later.
Tito Pasiliao, without any warning, drew a jungle bolo from a
scabbard tucked in his back, rushed towards Dominador and hacked him in the
head, in the scapular area, deltoid area and the right hand.[1]
Wounded and mustering all the strength be could summon, Dominador tried to run
towards his sister’s house which was some 12 meters away from the store. Tito
and Arturo caught up with him in the landing of the said house; then,
Tito held Dominador by the hair while Armando collared him. Both of the accused fired at Dominador, then
ran away.
Dominador was rushed to the hospital but died before reaching the
same. The autopsy report showed that
the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to hypovolemic (hemorrhage) shock, secondary to massive homothorax,
secondary to gunshot wound to lung parenchyma.
On January 11, 1989, the accused were charged with Murder in an
Information which reads as follows:
That on or about December 6, 1988 in the evening at Barangay
Salaan, Municipality of Mangaldan, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with each other, armed with
samurai and handgun, with intent to kill and treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously hack
and shoot Dominador Lalata inflicting upon him the following injuries:
– Incised wound, 5 cms.
long, 2 cms. deep, frontal area, head
– Incised wound, 6
cms., 2 cms. depth, scapular area, left
– Incised wound 3 cms.,
deltoid area, right
– Amputation, small
finger, right
–
Gunshot wound #1: Point of entry: .5 x
5 cms., inverted edges, neck area, posterior level of 6th cervical verterae Point of exit: 1 x 1 cm., everted edges, supra scapular
area, right
– Gunshot wound
#2: Point of Entry: .5 x 5 cms., inverted edges, posterior axillary
line, level of 6th, ICS
– Point of Exit: 1 x 1 cm. everted edges, PAL, level 5th-5th
ICS
ON OPENING UP, GUNSHOT WOUND NO. 2
TRAVERSED THE LOWER LOBES OF BOTTOM LEFT AND RIGHT LUNGS. ABOUT 2 LITERS OF NON CLOTTED BLOOD
EVACUATED IN THE THORACIC CAVITY.
which directly cause the death of Dominador
Lalata as a consequence, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
Contrary to Article 248, Revised Penal Code.
Dagupan City, January 11, 1989.[2]
An Information for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition was filed against Armando
Pasiliao on the later date of May 30, 1989, alleging the following:
That on or about the 6th day of December 1988 in the evening, of
Barangay Salaan, Municipality of Mangaldan, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession,
custody and control one (1) short firearm
with ammunitions, without first securing the necessary permit or license to
possess the same, neither to show nor have any written authority to carry
outside residence to transport for the purpose of surrendering the said firearm
and ammunitions to the proper authority.
The said firearm was used by accused, in conspiracy with Tito
Pasiliao, who was also armed with another short firearm, in shooting to death
one. Dominador Lalata, for which both
are indicted in a separate Information for Murder.
CONTRARY to Presidential Decree No. 1866.
Dagupan City, May 30, 1989.[3]
In Criminal Case No. D-9035, only accused Armando Pasiliao was tried
as the other accused Tito Pasiliao remained at large. The trial court then jointly tried the two cases and rendered a
Joint Decision on both in February 1, 1991, the decretal portion of which reads
as follows:
“WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. D-9035 the Court finds
accused Armando Pasiliao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder
with the use of unlicensed firearm and attended by the aggravating circumstance
of nighttime which is not affected by any mitigating circumstance, and pursuant
to law, hereby sentences Armando Pasiliao to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua and to pay an indemnity of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased
Dominador Lalata, plus costs.
Accused Armando Pasiliao is ordered to pay the sum of P8,980.00 as
actual damages.
In Criminal Case No. D-9357, the Court finds accused Armando
Pasiliao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 1, Paragraph 1
of Presidential Decree Number 1866 and pursuant to the Decree, hereby sentences
him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 17 years and 4 months which is
the maximum period of Prision Mayor in its maximum period Reclusion Temporal in
its medium period, as minimum to 20 years which is the medium period of
Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period to Reclusion Perpetua, as maximum, and
to pay the costs.
The slug (Exhibit B, Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition)
is declared confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government. It is ordered that the slug be turned over
to the nearest Philippine Constabulary Command for proper disposal.
SO ORDERED.
Dagupan City, February 1, 1991.”[4]
From the above decision, the accused appealed to this court
assigning the following as errors allegedly committed by the lower court, to
wit:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
I
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ARMANDO PASILIAO ON THE BIAS AND UNRELIABLE TESTIMONIES
OF ALLEGED EYEWITNESSES RONALD BROQUEL AND HELEN LALATA.
II
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN IMMEDIATELY LOOKING WITH DISFAVOR THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI, DENIAL AND/OR
AVOIDANCE PUT UP BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
III
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT BEYOND PROOF OF REASONABLE DOUBT.
We affirm.
The accused-appellant
would deny his complicity in the crime by alleging alibi. He testified that on December 6, 1988 at
about 6:30 in the evening, he was at his shop in Poblacion, Mangaldan, Pangasinan, repairing the
television set of one Ramon Aldana. It
took him more than an hour to finish the job. After which, he and Ramon drunk some bottles of beer inside his
shop. He did not issue a receipt for
the repair fee as Ramon did not ask for one.
We have consistently held that alibi is a weak defense because it
is easy to fabricate. In order to be given full faith and credit,
it must be clearly established and must not leave for doubt as to its
plausibility and verity. The accused
must show not only that he was not at the place where the crime was committed
but that it was impossible for him to be there.[5] Here,
the accused-appellant has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that it was impossible for him to be at the
store of Lolita Lalata in Salaan, Mangaldan, Pangasinan on that fateful day of
December 6, 1988 at around 7:00 o’clock p.m. By his own admission, the
accused Armando Pasiliao testified that his shop is only three kilometers away from the store of Lolita Lalata where the
incident took place. He further
testified that Salaan, Mangaldan, the scene of the crime, may be reached by
tricycle or calesa. We have ruled time
and again that no physical impossibility exists where the distance between the
scene of the crime and the place where the accused allegedly was at the time
would take only fifteen to twenty minutes to negotiate by jeep, or where it can
be traversed by walking in one
and a half hours, or where the places involved are only two hundred meters
apart.[6]
Here, there was no such impossibility.
Further, accused-appellants’ denial cannot prevail over the
positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the accused committed the crime.[7]
Ronald Broquel, in his direct examination on June 13, 1989, positively and
clearly identified Armando Pasiliao and Tito Pasiliao as the perpetrators of
the crime. Thus:
x x x x x x
COURT:
Q: Who hacked Dominador Lalata for three
times?
A: Tito Pasiliao, Sir.
FISCAL CARIÑO:
Q: After Dominador Lalata was hacked
three times by Tito Pasiliao, what else happened?
A: They chased
Dominador Lalata, sir.
COURT:
Q: Who chased Dominador Lalata?
A: Tito Pasiliao and Armando Pasiliao,
sir.
FISCAL CARIÑO:
Q: Up to where did Tito Pasiliao and
Armando Pasiliao chase Dominador Lalata.
A: Up to in-front of the house, sir.
Q: House of whom?
A: The sister of Dominador Lalata, sir.
Q: What happened in-front of that house
when the chasing ended?
A: When they caught
up with him Tito Pasiliao held him by the hair, sir.
Q: When Tito Pasiliao held Dominador
Lalata by the hair, what did Armando Pasiliao do, if any?
A: Armando Pasiliao held Dominador
Lalata at the collar of his shirt and then they shot him, sir.
Q: Who shot him?
A. Both of them at the same time, sir.
Q: After Armando Pasiliao and Tito
Pasiliao fired (at) Dominador Lalata, what happened?
A: They ran away, sir.
When asked to identify the accused in open court the other
eyewitness, Helen Lalata, pointed at Armando Pasiliao as one of the two men who
chased her uncle to their house, held his head and collared him, and then shot
him. Her testimony is thus quoted in
full:
x x x x x x
Q: And what did you observe while
closing that door?
A: I saw Tito Pasiliao and
Armando Pasiliao sandwiched my uncle Domy.
Q: When you said Tito Pasiliao and
Armando Pasiliao, are you referring to the accused in this case?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: (If) the Tito and Armando Pasiliao
are in court will you be able to identify them?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you please stand up and point to
the person of this Tito and Armando Pasiliao if they are here in court?
A:
Tito is not present. Armando Pasiliao is that man (witness pointing to a man
who, when asked his name, identified himself as Armando Pasiliao).
x x x x x x
Q:
According to you, this Tito Pasiliao and Armando Pasiliao sandwiched Dominador
Lalata, after sandwiching Dominador Lalata, what did this Tito Pasiliao do, if
you remember?
x x x x x x
A: He pulled the hair of my uncle, sir.
Q: What about Mando Pasiliao?
A: He held the collar of the shirt of my
uncle, sir.
x x x x x x
Q: What happened next?
A:
I was frightened
and was about to close the
door, then they shot Domy Lalata.
x x x x x x
Q: Who shot your uncle?
A: The two (2) of them, sir (witness
referring to Armando Pasiliao and Tito Pasiliao).[8]
This Court places great reliance on the findings of the trial
court based on the facts directly available to it as disclosed by the parties
during the trial, especially in criminal cases where the identity of the
culprit is the pivotal issue. The
conclusions of the trial judge who had the opportunity to observe and examine
the witnesses and to determine whether or not they were honoring their oaths,
are generally accepted on appeal.[9]
But the
accused-appellant would have this Court disregard the testimony of Helen Lalata. He contended that being a relative of the deceased, her testimony
was biased and was not worthy of credence. Suffice it to state that
mere relationship to the victim need not automatically tarnish the testimony of
witnesses. When there was no showing of improper motive on
the part of the witnesses for
testifying against the accused, the fact that they were related to the victim
did not render their clear and positive testimony less worthy of full faith and
credit. On the contrary, their natural
interest in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating
persons other than the culprits; otherwise, the latter would thereby gain
immunity.[10]
No improper motive was imputed against Helen Lalata that would make her
implicate the accused-appellants in the criminal cases filed against the latter. She had positively identified the accused as
the assailants. Hence, We are
constrained to uphold her
testimony positively pointing at Armando Pasiliao and Tito Pasiliao as the
murderers of her uncle.
And now, We consider the issue
of absence of powderburns on the person of the accused-appellant.
Accused-appellants
contend that such absence negatives the assertion that he killed the
deceased.
We have time and again held that an NBI chemist’s finding that
the paraffin test on the person of the appellant is negative, is not conclusive
to show that appellant has not fired a gun. It is possible for a person to fire a gun and yet be negative for the
presence of nitrates, as when firing while wearing gloves or by washing the
hands afterwards.[11] In
this case, close to 3 days had elapsed before the paraffin test was had. In all probability, the powderburns must
have been mashed away as it was impossible and contrary to human experience
for the accused-appellant not to
have washed his hands during those three days.
The trial court appreciated the presence of the qualifying
circumstance of treachery, thus elevating the crime to Murder; and the
aggravating circumstance of nighttime. There was treachery when the offender committed any of the crime against
persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make, which
means that no opportunity was given to
the latter to do so.[12] The
deceased Dominador was unarmed, and the attack was so sudden as to leave him
utterly defenseless. The hacking came
like the bolt of lightning and without any warning. He tried to escape but his assailants easily caught up with him
as he was too weak to run, and too weak to defend himself. Without giving him any opportunity or means
to repel the attack, Tito and Armando held his head, collared him and shot
him. This was treachery.
The lower court appreciated nocturnity against appellants solely
on the basis of the fact on record that the crime was committed at about 7:00
o’clock in the evening. We find this
erroneous. By and of itself, nighttime
is not an aggravating circumstance. It
becomes so only when it is especially sought by the offender, or taken
advantage of by him to facilitate the commission of the crime or to ensure his
immunity from capture.[13] In
the instant case, there was no proof to show that the aggravating circumstance
of nighttime was deliberately sought by accused-appellant in committing the
crime. As such, said circumstance
should be disallowed.
We agree with the Solicitor General that it was error for the
lower court to impose the indeterminate penalty of from 7 years and 4 months to
20 years in Criminal Case No. D-9357 for violation of P.D. No. 1866 or Illegal
Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions. Section 1, paragraph 2 of P.D. 1866 provides that “if homicide or
murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, the penalty of death
shall be imposed.” The death penalty cannot be imposed under the 1987
Constitution. The Indeterminate Sentence
Law does not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death or life
imprisonment (reclusion perpetua).[14] The
trial court committed an error in giving the accused Armando Pasiliao the
benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
It is the opinion of this Court, in the light of the foregoing
analysis and the applicable law and jurisprudence on the matter to hold that
the evidence was sufficient to sustain the judgment finding the
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime as charged, the
judgment in Criminal Case No. D-9035 is hereby affirmed, but the judgment in
Criminal Case No. D-9357 is hereby modified imposing the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua on the accused, Armando Pasiliao.
SO ORDERED.
Feliciano, Regalado, and
Nocon, JJ., concur.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), on
official leave.
*
Decision, “People of the Phils. vs. Tito Pasiliao and Armando Pasiliao,”
and “People of the Phils. vs. Armando Pasiliao y Gutierrez, alias “MANDO”;
Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 44, Dagupan City, Crispin
C. Laron, Judge.
[1] T.S.N., pp. 12-14, June 14, 1989; Exhibit
“B”.
[2]
Records, pp. 7-8.
[3]
Records, p. 9
[4] Joint
Decision, p. 13.
[5]
People vs. Albarillo,
188 SCRA 113 (1990); People vs.
Loveria, 187 SCRA 47 (1990).
[6]
People vs. Arceo, 137 SCRA 265 (1990).
[7] People vs. Payumo, id.,
at 64.
[8]
T.S.N., pp.
7-10, July 19, 1989.
[9]
People vs. Manzon, 190 SCRA 378 (1990).
[10] People vs.
de Mesa, 188 SCRA 48 (1990).
[11]
People vs. Talingdan, 191
SCRA 333 (1990).
[12]
Art. 14, paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code of the Phils.; People vs. Tiozon y Acid, 198 SCRA 368
(1991).
[13]
People vs. Boyles, 11
SCRA 88; Reyes, L.B., The Revised Penal Code, Book One Eleventh Edition, p.
357.
[14]
Sec.2 Art. No. 4225; People vs. Oga, 133 SCRA 530.