SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
133737
January 13, 2003
-versus-
JONATHAN DIAZ,
Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On appeal is the Decision
dated March 6, 1998[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City (Branch 13) finding
Jonathan
Diaz guilty of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion
perpetua and to pay to the heirs of Christie Joy Torres, civil
indemnity
for her death, actual damages, moral damages and costs.
The Amended Information,
filed on August 26, 1996, accuses Jonathan Diaz of the crime of MURDER
committed as follows:
That on or about October
14, 1995, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bladed
weapon,
in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of her
sex,
by means of treachery and evident premeditation and abuse of superior
strength,
and with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously,
assault, attack and stab the person of CHRISTINE JOY TORRES y TO, with
the use of said weapon that he was then armed with, thereby inflicting
upon the latter’s person multiple stabbed (sic) wounds which directly
caused
her death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said victim.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon arraignment, accused
Jonathan Diaz pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.[3]
Trial ensued and the prosecution presented a total of eighteen
witnesses,
namely: Doctors, Henry G. Cawley and Concepcion T. Fabian; security
guard
Lorna A. Natividad; students, Deborah M. Comille and Maria Coleen
Lincoln;
faculty members Servando Halili, Jr., Evelyn Garcia, and Jocelyn
Partosa;
members of the staff of the Dean of Student Affairs, Arlando Escultor
and
Ceferina Gonzales; janitor Isidro Francisco; policemen, SPO4 Elmer
Acuna
and SPO2 Salvador Arcillas; parents of the victim, Pilar and Rodolfo
Torres;
Director of the Office of the Student Affairs, Francis Jay Llenado; and
school nurses, Arnold Toribio and Nieves Taguinod. On rebuttal,
the
prosecution presented Police Inspector Francisco Carpio de los Reyes,
the
victim’s father, Rodolfo Torres and NBI Special Investigator Pablo
Acosta,
Jr.cralaw:red
Summarizing the testimonies
presented by the prosecution, the court a quo narrated the following
facts:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"xxx At about 11 o’clock
that morning,[4]
three (3) friends by the names of Deborah Comille, Maria Coleen Lincoln
and Janet Nalzaro met outside the school library and they all agreed to
go to the faculty room located at the second floor of the college
building,
Gonzaga wing. From the premises of the school library, they proceeded
to
the college building passing, the backstairs near the backfield of the
campus, then ascended the two flights of stairs to the second floor of
the college building, Gonzaga" wing. Upon reaching the second
floor
on the alley leading to the men’s comfort room, and as they were about
to turn right to the corridor leading to the faculty room, they heard a
scream of a woman. At first, they thought it came from the
backfield
and they tried to verify, but when they heard another scream and
struggling
coming from inside the men’s comfort room, Janet Nalzaro and Maria
Coleen
Lincoln wanted to enter the men’s comfort room but Deborah reminded
them
that it was a men’s comfort room and also commented that it might only
be a lover’s quarrel. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Determined to do something,
Janet Nalzaro tried to attract the attention of the male teacher who
was
having a class in Room C-25, which is just adjacent to the men’s
comfort
room, but apparently she was not noticed, so Deborah Comille decided to
call for help at the faculty room, leaving both Janet Nalzaro and Maria
Coleen Lincoln standing in front of the men’s comfort room. At
the
faculty room, Deborah Comille informed Miss Evelyn Garcia, a faculty
member,
of what she and her friends heard coming from the men’s comfort room
and
Miss Evelyn Garcia went to the men’s comfort room but hesitated in
entering
it, so leaving the three friends standing in front of the men’s comfort
room, Miss Evelyn Garcia returned to the faculty room and sought
assistance
from a male faculty member by the name of Servando Halili, who
immediately
responded by proceeding to the men’s comfort room followed behind by
some
others in the faculty room who heard the pleas for help by Miss Evelyn
Garcia. Upon entering the place, Servando Halili first checked
the
urinals and found no person there, then he went to Cubicle No. 1, but
also
saw that it was empty, but upon reaching Cubicle No. 2, and as he was
going
to cubicle no. 3, he saw the back of a big male person wearing white
T-shirt
and maong pants inside the said cubicle and immediately the door of
Cubicle
No. 2 was slammed shut.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At this point, Servando
Halili decided to seek the help of higher authorities, so he went
outside
the comfort room and asked Miss Evelyn Garcia to go downstairs to the
office
of Assistant Dean Aldrin Hitalia located at the ground floor.
Complying,
Miss Evelyn Garcia descended using the back stairs and in the meantime,
Servando Halili posted himself on the corridor about four or five
meters
from the door of the men’s comfort room, while Janet Nalzaro, Maria
Coleen
Lincoln, Deborah Comille, Shalimar Alih and Jocelyn Partosa stood
nearby
also at the corridor at varying distances in front of the door of the
men’s
comfort room. Moments later, Servando Halili was called by Miss
Evelyn
Garcia who was at the back stairs, which prompted Servando Halili to
look
down at the stairs towards Miss Evelyn Garcia and the latter told the
former
that Dean Hitalia was not in her office. Thereupon, Servando
Halili
turned towards the men’s comfort room and it was at this moment that a
tall man with broad shoulders wearing white T-shirt and maong pants
emerged
from the men’s comfort room wiping his face with a piece of cloth and
was
carrying a bag. Deborah Comille who was standing in front of the
comfort room also saw the man as the man came out of the men’s comfort
room. Comille said the man was bringing a towel which he used to
wipe his face, however, she saw the whole face of the man and she
recognized
the man as a classmate in the second semester of school year 1993-1994,
and whom she identified later as JONATHAN DIAZ. Coleen Lincoln
was
also standing on the corridor fronting the men’s comfort room and saw a
tall and stout man carrying a knapsack and covering his face with a
piece
of cloth come out of the men’s comfort room. Jocelyn Partosa was
also one of those who stood about four meters, according to her, from
the
door of the same men’s comfort room and she saw a big and tall man come
out of it wearing a white T-shirt and a faded maong pants and who was
covering
half his face with a piece of cloth.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After emerging from
the men’s comfort room, this tall and big man hurriedly proceeded along
the corridor towards the back stairs and while passing Servando Halili,
this man uttered the following words, "Papatayin kita". Then the
same man rushed down the back stairs of the college building and in so
doing, met Miss Evelyn Garcia who was still at the back stairs.
Miss
Evelyn Garcia said that upon seeing the man rushing down, she was
rooted
on the spot but she stared at the man, although she was scared and
noted
that the man looked familiar to her, having previously seen him in the
campus of the Ateneo de Zamboanga. She also noticed that the tall
and big man was wearing a white T-shirt and was carrying a bag and a
towel.
She further noticed that the man was sweating and she also saw a red
spot
at the left chest of the man’s T-shirt. After the man was gone,
all
those who were in the vicinity of the men’s comfort room entered it, to
verify, and they found a young girl, who was later on identified as
CHRISTIE
JOY TORRES, lying unconscious inside Cubicle No. 2 of the men’s comfort
room, the same cubicle where earlier Servando Halili saw the back of a
tall and big man before its door was slammed shut.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon the discovery of
the unconscious girl in the men’s comfort room, a school employee by
the
name of Arlando Escultor who was earlier instructed by his superior,
Francis
Llenado, the Director of Student Affairs of the Ateneo de Zamboanga, to
verify the commotion at the men’s comfort room located at the second
floor
of the college building, Gonzaga wing, arrived at the scene and with
the
help of others who were present, carried the unconscious form of
CHRISTIE
JOY TORRES to the school infirmary where the latter was administered
first
aid treatment by the school nurse. As the unconscious CHRISTIE
JOY
TORRES was being carried outside the men’s comfort room, Ceferina
Gonzales,
a secretary of the Arts and Sciences Office, who was earlier drawn to
the
scene recognized CHRISTIE JOY TORRES as the girl she saw talking to a
tall
and big man clad in while T-shirt and maong pants, on the corridor
facing
the back field in front of the men’s comfort room at about 10 o’clock
that
morning, when (sic) she came from taking her snacks. Later, the
unconscious
CHRISTIE JOY TORRES was brought to the Zamboanga Doctor’s Hospital on
board
a school vehicle, however, she was declared DOA (Dead on Arrival) by
Dr.
Concepcion Fabian, the attending physician who discovered that CHRISTIE
JOY TORRES succumbed to several injuries including multiple stabbed
(sic)
wounds in the vital parts of her body. These injuries were
subsequently
verified by Dr. Henry Cawley, the medico-legal officer of the National
Bureau of Investigation, Regional Office, Zamboanga City, when he
conducted
a post-mortem examination of the cadaver of CHRISTIE JOY TORRES in the
afternoon of the same day of the incident, at the La Merced Funeral
Homes,
where the deceased victim was brought.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the meantime, after
Christie Joy Torres was brought to the Zamboanga Doctor’s Hospital and
was declared dead on arrival, an emergency meeting was held in the
Office
of the Dean in the Ateneo De Zamboanga, attended by heads of offices of
the school, security guards and all possible witnesses. Pictures
of students and those who previously enrolled as students in the school
were produced from the Office of the School Registrar and the Office of
the Dean of Student Affairs and were shown to all those who were in the
meeting, particularly, to Deborah Comille, Maria Coleen Lincoln and
Janet
Nalzaro and accordingly, it was Deborah Comille who was the first one
to
identify the accused Jonathan Diaz through his picture. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Earlier, it was established
by the prosecution’s evidence that the accused JONATHAN DIAZ entered
the
Ateneo de Zamboanga school campus through Gate II at 9:20 in the
morning
of October 14, 1995. This was testified to by Lorna Natividad, a
33 year old security guard of the Black Arrow Security Agency,
Zamboanga
City, assigned at the Ateneo de Zamboanga, who declared that while she
and her fellow security guard by the name of Alfredo Beliganio were
manning
Gate II of the Ateneo de Zamboanga in the morning of October 14, 1995,
the accused JONATHAN DIAZ whom she knows as Jay Diaz since the latter
was
a former student of the school, arrived at Gate II and wanted to enter
the campus. xxx chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It was also established
by the prosecution, through the testimony of Isidro Francisco, a
janitor
of the Ateneo de Zamboanga that at 10 o’clock in the morning of October
14, 1995, the accused JONATHAN DIAZ was standing at the ground floor of
the college building, near the faculty men’s comfort room and that
Isidro
Francisco and the accused had a conversation at said place.
Furthermore,
established by the testimony of prosecution witness Arnold Toribio that
moments after 10:50 in the morning of October 14, 1995, after he was
through
attending to his last patient in the school infirmary where he works as
a school nurse of the Ateneo de Zamboanga, he met the accused JONATHAN
DIAZ who was going to the front of the gymnasium while he was on his
way
to take his snacks at the back canteen behind the school
gymnasium.
They were only a few meters apart when they passed each other and he
even
nodded to the accused JONATHAN DIAZ, whom he knows as they were school
mates in the grade school as well as in the high school in the Ateneo
de
Zamboanga. Arnold Toribio said he noticed that the accused
JONATHAN
DIAZ was wearing a white T-shirt and that there was something clinging
on his left shoulder and also saw perspiration on his head.
According
to Arnold Toribio, he is sure of the time he left the school infirmary
because he looked at the clock before leaving to take his snacks.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The defense, on the
other hand, presented the testimonies of Dr. Rodolfo Valmoria, Dr.
Indah
Taas Alpa, Sergio Jose Andante Dayrit, Gloria Diaz, Editha Aquino, Jose
Neil Nave, Robin Almazan and the accused himself.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Valmoria, Medico-Legal
Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory Zamboanga City, testified that
considering
the wounds in the scapular region as well as the contusions in the
neck,
it is doubtful if the victim could have still talked or made any sound,
contrary to the testimonies of the three (3) female students who
allegedly
heard screams from the men’s comfort room.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Alpa, an expert
in psychiatry testified that it is understandable if the accused had
the
"tendency to escape and isolate himself" because there were people
trying
to arrest him.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sergio Dayrit, brother-in-law
of the accused, testified that he saw the accused in the premises of
Ateneo
de Zamboanga in the morning of October 14, 1995 at around 10:35 in the
morning; that after chatting with the accused for 5 to 10 minutes
at the bench near Gate II of the school, they parted ways.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Editha Aquino, a former
student of Ateneo de Zamboanga, narrated that in the morning of October
14, 1995, while waiting for a friend at the sidewalk near an electric
post
outside the campus and before boarding a tricycle, she saw the accused
pass by; that the accused was wearing light gray shirt and cream denim
pants that day.[9]
Gloria Diaz, mother
of the accused, testified that her son had no previous record of
breaking
the law whether in school or outside.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Neil Nave, a friend
and former classmate of the accused, testified that: around 9:30 in the
morning, while waiting at a bench in front of the school chapel,
accused
arrived and they talked for a while;[11]
afterwards, accused asked him to accompany him in looking for his
brother-in-law
at the back part of the college building; after about seven minutes,
they
saw the brother-in-law of accused then they parted ways; at around
10:30
or 10:35 in the morning, he saw accused call his attention by waving at
him, reminding him of the birthday party of the father of accused that
afternoon; he saw accused, wearing a light gray shirt, walk out through
Gate I.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused narrated in
detail on the witness stand his whereabouts on October 14, 1995 and the
subsequent days leading to his arrest. He testified that: around
8:30 in the morning of October 14, 1995, he left his parents’ house in
Guiwan, Zamboanga City and went to Ateneo de Zamboanga to look for his
brother-in-law; his wife had asked him to tell her brother that she
will
be arriving that day from Isabela, Basilan and she wanted her
brother
to fetch her from the wharf;[13]
at the Ateneo de Zamboanga, he entered the campus using Gate II; the
security
guards at the gate did not question him or make him write his name in
any
logbook as they already knew him; he proceeded along the passageway and
saw his friend, Jose Neil Nave, sitting on a bench; he invited Nave to
his parents’ house for a birthday party and they chatted for 15 to 20
minutes;
afterwards, they went to look for his brother-in-law passing the
college
building and the gymnasium where they met some of the friends of
accused
including "manong" who works in the maintenance department; they saw
his
brother-in-law at a bench near the DSA (Dean of Student Affairs) in
front
of the college building; he then told his brother-in-law about the
request
of his wife to fetch her; when his brother-in-law left for the
conference
room, he decided to leave and as he started to leave, he again saw his
friend, Nave, who earlier left his company when they found his
brother-in-law;
he left the campus through Gate I, where from a distance he reminded
Nave
of the party saying, "Mamaya,"[14]
as he walked to the front of the Cathedral; after leaving the campus of
Ateneo, he met Editha Aquino, a former student of Ateneo who also comes
from Basilan; he asked where she was going to which Aquino replied that
she was waiting for somebody; he then boarded a tricycle and proceeded
to a boarding house in front of the Southern City Colleges to invite a
friend by the name of Moger Ahmad; he waited for 20 to 30 minutes
but Ahmad never came, noticing that it was already 11:30 in the
morning,
he remembered he had to fetch his wife at the wharf and so he
rode
a tricycle and went to the wharf; upon reaching the boat, he
found
that the passengers had already left since the boat arrived early from
Isabela; he then recalled that his mother had told him that his father
would be arriving with his (accused’s) wife from Isabela, Basilan that
morning on board the same boat; he then decided to go to Sta. Maria,
Zamboanga
City to invite his friend, Neil Reynera, who lives in that place;[15]
upon reaching the place where Neil Reynera lives, the accused called
him
and they chatted for some time; while they were chatting, a friend of
Neil
invited him to a drinking spree and he insisted that the accused go
with
him; they went to a carenderia across the street and drank San Miguel
beer
for two and a half hours; at about 3 o’clock in the afternoon, he
asked permission from the group to look for a pay phone; while walking
along the highway to look for a store with a telephone, he saw a friend
by the name of Robin Almazan driving a jeep; he asked Robin where he
could
find a telephone and he pointed him to a nearby establishment; at
the Molina Store, he first called the house of his parents but was not
able to contact anybody in the house; he called Neil Nave at his
sister’s
residence but was informed that Nave was not there; he then
contacted
Nave’s beeper number and asked him to call the accused immediately;
soon
after, the phone rang and he talked with Nave, asking where he was and
how and where he could fetch him; Nave told him that there was a
stabbing incident in the Ateneo de Zamboanga and that his name was
mentioned
as the suspect; at first, he thought that Nave was joking, but soon, he
realized that it was not a joke; he then hung up the phone feeling
uneasy
and confused;[16]
after leaving the store, he returned to their drinking session;
at
around 6 o’clock in the afternoon, he tried to go home but upon
reaching
the market in Putik, a "trisikad" driver told him that policemen were
looking
for him and that his father left their house; instead of proceeding to
his parents’ house, he rode a tricycle to the city proper; upon
reaching
the Sta. Cruz market, he saw his friend, Mitchell, also known as Rambo,
riding a motorcycle; he rode with Mitchell and told him that he was a
suspect
in the stabbing incident in the Ateneo de Zamboanga; Mitchell brought
accused
to his friend’s house in Talon-Talon, where Mitchell told the latter of
accused’s problem;[17]
there, he drank again with Mitchell and his friend;[18]
he slept that night in the house of Mitchell’s friend[19]
where he heard over the radio that there was a shoot-to-kill order
against
him and he was being hunted down by the police authorities;[20]
he woke up the following day at about 10:30 in the morning and after
taking
his breakfast, he went to a nearby store and tried to call his father’s
house but the phone was busy; when Mitchell returned that morning,
Mitchell
told him of the news he heard that it was a son of a NAPOLCOM official
that was being hunted by the police and there was a reward to get him
dead
or alive; Mitchell and his friend panicked and told him to leave
as they did not want to be implicated; he decided to leave Zamboanga
City
and at about 5:30 in the afternoon of that day, he boarded the M/V
Maynilad
for Manila;[21]
in Manila, he never attempted to contact an elder sister who works in
Camp
Crame, Quezon City, instead, he rented a room in a house in Tomas
Morato
Road, Quezon City;[22]
he worked in a bakery also found along the same road; he went to
Biñan,
Laguna, where he worked as a jeep conductor;[23]
later, he went to Carmona, Cavite, where he rented a room in a house
there
while working as a construction helper until he was arrested by PARAC
operatives
on August 17, 1996;[24]
subsequently, he was brought to Zamboanga City and was placed in the
city
jail.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On March 6, 1998, the
Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City (Branch 13) rendered the herein
assailed decision finding the accused guilty of the crime charged, thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of
all the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the accused JONATHAN
B. DIAZ GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER and there
being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances to consider,
hereby
imposes upon him the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with all the
accessory
penalties appurtenant thereto; to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased-victim
Christie Joy Torres the amount of P50,000.00; to pay the parents of the
said deceased-victim the amount of P223,935.00 as actual damages and
the
amount of P200,000.00 as moral damages; and to pay the costs. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[26]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, the present petition
with the following Assignment of Errors: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED WHEN IT CONVICTED THE APPELLANT JONATHAN DIAZ BASED SOLELY ON
ALLEGED
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
II
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED WHEN IT HELD IN THIS CASE MOTIVE IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL AND
IMPORTANT
IN THIS CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLANT WAS GUILTY OF
THE
CRIME OF MURDER.
III
THE COURT A QUO
ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT FLIGHT OF THE APPELLANT WAS AN ADMISSION OF
GUILT.[27]
Three issues need to
be resolved in this appeal: (1) whether or not the circumstantial
evidence
presented by the prosecution is sufficient to convict
accused-appellant;
(2) whether or not motive is essential when accused is convicted based
on circumstantial evidence; and (3) whether or not the flight of
appellant
is an admission of guilt.cralaw:red
Anent the first issue
- Appellant claims that the trial court erred when it convicted him
based
solely on circumstantial evidence.[28]
He maintains that there is doubt that he was at the male’s comfort room
of the second floor of the building of Ateneo de Zamboanga at the time
of the incident because no one saw or met him on the second floor of
the
college building before Christie Joy Torres was found
unconscious.
Further, appellant maintains that assuming that he was in the comfort
room,
there was no assurance that there was no other person in the same room
at the time who could have been the assailant.[29]
Appellant also questions the testimony of the three girls who allegedly
heard screams from the men’s room when the persons in the adjacent
classroom
did not hear anything. In addition, defense witness, Dr. Valmoria
had certified that based on the injuries sustained by the victim, he
doubts
whether the victim could have screamed or moaned.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with appellee’s
contention that while there may be no prosecution witness who actually
saw appellant as the one who inflicted the fatal injuries on Christie
Joy
Torres, the series of circumstances, duly proven and established by the
prosecution, were strong and sufficient to point to appellant as the
perpetrator
of the crime.[31]
In the recent case of
People vs. De Mesa,[32]
this Court held that: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Direct evidence of
the killing is not indispensable for convicting an accused when
circumstantial
evidence can sufficiently establish his guilt. There can be a judgment
of conviction when the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken
chain
of events that leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pinpointing
the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator of the
crime. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1) There
is more than one circumstance;
(2) The
facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(3) The
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt."[33]
In this case, while
no one actually saw the appellant stab the victim, the chain of events
leads to no other conclusion but that appellant was the one who stabbed
Christie Joy Torres and no one else. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As thoroughly and painstakingly
discussed by the trial court: First, appellant entered the campus of
Ateneo
de Zamboanga at 9:20 in the morning of October 14, 1995 as reflected in
the log book of the Security Guard.[34]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second, at around 10:00
in the morning of said date, appellant was seen at the ground floor of
the college building near the comfort room of the faculty men as
testified
to by Isidro Francisco, a janitor he conversed with.[35]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third, somewhere between
10:30 and 11:00 in the morning, faculty member Halili responded to a
request
for assistance from Evelyn Garcia to check the men’s comfort room on
the
second floor of the college building where a woman was heard crying for
help. Upon checking, he saw the back of a big male person wearing
a white shirt and maong pants at Cubicle No. 2 and as he passed by, its
door was slammed shut. He stepped out of the men’s room to seek
the
help of higher authorities and asked Garcia to call for the assistant
dean
whose office was at the ground floor. In the meantime, he waited
outside the door of the men’s room together with Deborah Comille, Janet
Nalzaro, Coleen Lincoln, Shalimar Alih and Jocelyn Partosa.[36]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fourth, upon learning
that the assistant dean was not around, Halili decided to re-enter the
men’s room and it was at that moment that he saw a broad shouldered and
tall man wearing a white t-shirt with maong pants and clutching a bag
emerge
from the comfort room. This man was wiping his face with a piece
of cloth with his face partially covered. But as the man walked briskly
towards the backstairs and passed him by at the corridor, the man
uttered
the words "papatayin kita."[37]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fifth, Comille, Lincoln
and Partosa saw the big and tall man come out of the comfort room since
they were standing in front of it and were only a few feet away.
Although the man was partially covering his face, Comille noticed that
he looked familiar and when the man descended the backstairs, Comille
saw
the face of the man which was no longer covered with the piece of cloth
and recognized him to be appellant Jonathan Diaz, a classmate of hers
in
the Zoology class during the second semester of school year
1993-1994.
The other companions of Comille also saw the man and later, in the
Dean’s
Office, when shown several pictures of students and former students of
the school, they were unanimous in picking out the picture of the
accused
as the very person and the only one who came out of the comfort room
immediately
before the unconscious body of Christie Joy Torres was discovered in
Cubicle
No. 2 of the said CR.[38]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sixth, as the tall and
big man in white t-shirt descended the backstairs of the college
building,
Evelyn Garcia, who was still on the stairs about to go up, came face to
face with the man and noticed that the man was sweating and had a red
spot
on his shirt near the left chest area. The man looked familiar to her,
having seen him in the campus before and like the others, she
identified
the picture of the appellant as the man she met on the stairs that
morning
immediately before the discovery of the body of the victim.[39]
Seventh, at 10:40 in
the morning, Grace Bayog, an Accounting Clerk of the Ateneo de
Zamboanga
Multipurpose Cooperative, was passing the college building and while
nearing
the back end of the building heard the scream of a woman and the
banging
of a door coming from the men’s comfort room at the second floor of the
building.[40]
As a rebuttal witness, she refuted the claim of the defense that nobody
in the nearby classroom heard the scream of the victim.[41]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Eighth, at 10:50 in
the morning, Arnold Toribio, a school nurse, while on his way to
canteen
behind the gymnasium, met appellant whom he knows for many years.
He even nodded at Jonathan Diaz whom he noticed was wearing a white
shirt
with something clinging at his back.[42]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Ninth, soon after the
death of Christie Joy Torres, and when the accused was regarded by the
police authorities as a suspect in the killing, accused Diaz
disappeared
and could not be located in his parents’ home in Guiwan, Zamboanga City
or in Isabela, Basilan Province where he resided with his wife and
children.
In was only about ten months later or on August 17, 1996, that he was
found
and arrested by PARAC agents in Silang, Cavite.[43]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We are convinced that
the circumstantial evidence established the guilt of appellant beyond
reasonable
doubt. There was more than one circumstance in this case; the
facts
from which the inferences are derived were proven and corroborated, and
the combination of all the circumstances is such as to lead to the only
conclusion that appellant and no other person was guilty of the murder
of Christie Joy Torres. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, there was
no showing that the witnesses were prompted by any ill-motive to point
to appellant as the culprit. Where, as in this case, there is no
evidence that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by
improper
motives, the presumption is that they were not so actuated and their
testimonies
are entitled to full faith and credit.[44]
It is also a well-entrenched
rule that when it comes to the issue of credibility of witnesses, the
appellate
court generally will not overturn the findings of the trial courts
since
they are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity
and
spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the
witnesses’
manner of testifying, demeanor and behavior in court.[45]
Basic is the rule that the findings of the trial court on the
credibility
of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect
and will not be disturbed on appeal, in the absence of any clear
showing
that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
circumstances
of weight and substance which would have affected the result of the
case.[46]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant miserably
failed to show that the case at bar falls under any of the
above-mentioned
exceptions. The testimony of Dr. Valoria that it was not
possible
for the students to have heard the victim scream did not demolish the
testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses that they actually heard the victim scream
inside the men’s comfort room. It is not disputed that the victim
sustained multiple contusions, abrasions, lacerations and stab wounds.[47]
Dr. Valmoria himself had admitted on the witness stand that in the
process
of the wounds being inflicted, most specially abrasions, a person could
still shout for help.[48]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to the second issue,
accused-appellant contends that since the conviction in this case was
based
on circumstantial evidence, motive should be proved. Citing People vs.
Peruelo,[49]
appellant argues that where the identification of the killer is
extremely
tenuous, proof of motive is essential. Appellant explicates that
there was no proof that the victim was a campus beauty or that she had
many admirers; that there was no proof that she ever quarreled with the
appellant or anyone of his family.[50]
We are not convinced.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case of People
vs. Rendaje,[51]
the accused therein argued that due to the lack of direct evidence to
establish
the identity of the assailant, proof of motive becomes essential.
We ruled in this wise: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"xxx the prosecution
has established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It was able to
pinpoint him, to the exclusion of all other persons, as the one
responsible
for the crime. Thus, the presence or the absence of motive is not
essential."[52]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellee has satisfactorily
explained that the beauty or attractiveness of a woman has nothing to
do
with the crime of murder. We agree that appellant’s resort to the
personality of the victim as proof of lack of motive is utterly
misplaced.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case of People
vs. Bangcado,[53]
we held that:
"xxx even in the absence
of a known motive, the time-honored rule is that motive is not
essential
to convict when there is no doubt as to the identity of the
culprit.
Lack of motive does not preclude conviction when the crime and the
participation
of the accused therein are definitely shown, particularly when we
consider
how nowadays, it is a matter of judicial knowledge that persons have
killed
or committed serious offense for no reason at all."[54]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Anent the third issue,
appellant argues that the court a quo erred when it held that flight of
the appellant was an admission of guilt inasmuch as nobody saw him
running
away from the building of Ateneo. He even talked to his friend
Edith
Aquino and greeted her. As to his decision to stay in Manila,
Laguna
and Cavite for almost a year after the incident, appellant cites
defense
witness Dr. Alpa who explained that it is reasonable for a person to
escape
when there are people wanting to arrest him; that such flight does not
necessarily mean he is guilty.[55]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We uphold appellee’s
assertions that: the allegation of appellant that no one saw him
running
away from the scene of the crime has no bearing since non-flight during
the commission of the crime does not mean that one did not commit or
participate
in its commission; there was no evidence that a so-called ‘shoot to
kill’
order was issued by the police in order to get him, which according to
accused was the reason why he hid for almost a year; and it is
doctrinally
settled that flight of an accused is an indication of his guilt.[56]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In People vs. del Mundo,
we held:
"Jurisprudence has repeatedly
declared that flight is an indication of guilt. The flight of an
accused,
in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance from
which an inference of guilt may be established ‘for a truly innocent
person
would normally grasp the first available opportunity to defend himself
and to assert his innocence.’"[57]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the present case,
instead of going home after finishing his business at Ateneo, he moved
from place to place in Zamboanga City. He claims to have later
heard
that there was an order to arrest and shoot him by reason of which he
went
to Manila, then stayed for a while in Laguna, and then moved to Cavite
where he was eventually arrested after almost a year of evading
arrest.
His explanation that he feared arrest is not sufficient to overthrow
the
fundamental presumption involving flight.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant’s claim that
he did not take flight immediately after the incident; that nobody saw
him running away from the building and that he in fact talked with
Edith
Aquino, has no probative value so as to exculpate him from
liability.
As we have held in People vs. Omar,[58]
non-flight may not be construed as an indication of innocence.[59]
There is no law or dictum holding that non-flight of an accused is
conclusive
proof of innocence.[60]
In the more recent case of People vs. Delmo,[61]
the appellants therein claimed that none of them fled despite
opportunities
to do so which should be credited to them as an indication of their
innocence.
To this contention we held that [w]hile it is true that we have ruled
that
flight is evidence of guilt, there is no law or dictum holding that
staying
put is proof of innocence, for the Court is not blind to the cunning
ways
of a wolf which, after a kill, may feign innocence and choose not to
flee.[62]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We therefore sustain
the trial court in convicting accused Jonathan Diaz of the crime of
murder
beyond reasonable doubt and in imposing upon him the penalty of
reclusion
perpetua as provided for in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, the award of
damages must be modified. The award of Two Hundred Twenty Three
Thousand
Nine Hundred Thirty Five Pesos (P223,935.00) as actual damages must be
reduced to Forty Five Thousand Pesos (P45,000.00) which is the only
expense
covered by a receipt issued by the La Merced Funeral Homes for
embalment,
coffin and other services.[63]
The other expenses allegedly incurred by the heirs of the victim can
not
be sustained without any tangible document to support such claim.[64]
The trial court misapplied the ruling in People v. Cordero that "Of the
expenses allegedly incurred, the Court can only give credence to those
supported by receipts and which appear to have been genuinely incurred
in connection with the death, wake and burial of the victim." chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It must be emphasized
that under said rule, there are two requisites that must be complied
with
before damages may be awarded - not only should the alleged expenses be
supported by receipts but also they should have been genuinely incurred
in connection with the death, wake and burial of the victim.
Thus,
the expenses incurred for the tomb, snacks and softdrinks during the
wake,
and food on the 9th day of prayer, although they may have been incurred
in connection with the death, can not be awarded as they are not
supported
by receipts. Furthermore, the award of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00) as moral damages should be reduced to Fifty
Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00) in accordance with recent rulings.[65]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A civil indemnity in
the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) is correctly awarded to
the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the fact that
a crime was committed resulting in the death of the victim and that the
accused was responsible therefor.[66]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City (Branch 13) is AFFIRMED
with
MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant is found GUILTY of the crime of
MURDER and there being neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances,
he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all
the
accessory penalties appurtenant thereto and ordered to pay the heirs of
Christie Joy Torres the amounts of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as
civil indemnity for the victim’s death; Forty Five Thousand
(P45,000.00)
as actual damages; Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages;
and, the costs. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman)
,
Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Callejo, Sr.,
JJ.
,
concur. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
In Crim. Case No. 3192 (13464).
[2]
Rollo, p. 12.
[3]
Records, p. 42.
[4]
Referring to October 14, 1995, per RTC Decision, p. 33.
[5]
Rollo, pp. 64-69.
[6]
TSN, January 27, 1997, p. 15.
[7]
TSN, March 12, 1997, p. 8.
[8]
TSN, January 27, 1997, pp. 30-32. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id., at p. 44.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id., at p. 51.
[11]
TSN, February 24, 1997, p. 4.
[12]
Id., at pp. 6-8; 30.
[13]
TSN, February 25, 1997, pp. 10-12.
[14]
Id., at pp. 13-18.
[15]
Id., at pp. 19-23.
[16]
Id,. at pp. 24-31.
[17]
Id., at pp. 32-37.
[18]
Id ,at pp. 39,44.
[19]
Id., at p. 41
[20]
Id., at pp. 43-44
[21]
Id., at pp. 41-48.
[22]
Id., at pp. 49-50
[23]
Id., at pp. 52-53.
[24]
Id., at pp. 55-56.
[25]
Id., at p. 60. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Rollo, p. 86.
[27]
Rollo, p. 123.
[28]
Id., at p. 126.
[29]
Id., at pp. 136.
[30]
Id., at p. 137.
[31]
Id., at p. 263.
[32]
354 SCRA 397 (2001).
[33]
Id. at pp. 407-408.
[34]
RTC Decision, p. 43.
[35]
Ibid.
[36]
Ibid.
[37]
Id., at p. 44.
[38]
Ibid.
[39]
Id., at pp. 44-45.
[40]
Id., at p. 45.
[41]
TSN, April 10, 1997, pp. 24-25.
[42]
Ibid.
[43]
Ibid.
[44]
People vs. Ortiz, G.R. No. 133814, July 17, 2001.
[45]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
People vs. Pacina, 338 SCRA 195 (2000).
[47]
Exhibit 'A', Autopsy Report No. N-95-21.
[48]
TSN, p. 15, January 27, 1997.
[49]
105 SCRA 226, 238 (1981).
[50]
Rollo, pp. 137-138.
[51]
344 SCRA 738 (2000).
[52]
Id. at p. 752.
[53]
346 SCRA 189 (2000).
[54]
Id. at p. 201.
[55]
Id., at pp. 141-142.
[56]
Rollo, p. 280-81.
[57]
Promulgated on October 2, 2001, GR No. 138929.
[58]
327 SCRA 221 (2000).
[59]
Id., at p. 229.
[60]
People vs. Pareja, 265 SCRA 429, 441 (1996).
[61]
G.R. No. 130078-82, October 4, 2002.
[62]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[63]
Exhibit 'FF'.
[64]
People v. Gadim, Jr., 331 SCRA 345 (2000).
[65]
People vs. Clarino, GR No. 134634, July 31, 2001; People vs. Mosquerra,
GR No. 129209, August 9, 2001.
[66]
People vs. Dawaton, G.R. No. 146247, September 17, 2002.
|