SECOND DIVISION.
.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
134940
April 30, 2003
-versus-
CATALINO
MELENDRES,
JR.,BERNARDINO
KIRIT
AND TEODULO KITAY,
Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before us is an appeal
from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental
(Branch
44) finding accused-appellants Catalino Melendres, Jr., Bernardino
Kirit
and Teodulo Kitay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of double murder and
imposing
a penalty of "two (2) Reclusion Perpetua".
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On November 10, 1992,
an Information was filed against Catalino Melendres, Jr., alias
"Jun-Jun",
together with two John Does alleging:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or
about July 23, 1992 at 9:00 o’clock in the evening, more or less
purposely
sought to better accomplish their criminal design, in Sitio Balatican,
Barangay Casala-an, Siaton, Negros Oriental, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill,
treachery
and abuse of superior strength, went up the house of one Pacifico
Gualingco
and once inside, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously,
assault, attack, hack and wound the brothers SYREL and EXOR, all
surnamed
BALASABAS, who were asleep in said house, with the use of long
bolos
with which said accused were then armed and provided, thus inflicting
the
following injuries, to wit:
On Syrel
Balasabas:
1.
Hacking
wound, neck cutting muscles, fascia and bones
2. Hacking
wound, shoulder,
(L) 6 cm.
3. Hacking
wound, head
(L), 10 cm.
4.
Disarticulation,
small, ring and middle fingers.
On Exor Balasabas:
1.
Hacking
wound, neck, cutting muscles, fascia and bones
2. Hacking
wound, head
16 cm., frontal to temporal area traversing ear (L) with skull FX 16 cm.
3. Hacking
wound, frontal
area with skull FX
which injuries
caused victims’
death immediately thereafter.
Contrary to Article
248
of the Revised Penal Code.[1]
On May 3, 1993,
Catalino was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged
against
him.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 30, 1993, the
prosecution presented its first witness, Rodrigo Hungoy. He
identified
Bernardino Kirit and Teodulo Kitay, who were then present in the
courtroom,
as the two companions of Catalino who hacked Syrel and Exor Balasabas
on
the night of July 23, 1992. The prosecution then moved to amend
the
Information praying that the names of Bernardino Kirit and Teodulo
Kitay
be substituted for the two John Does named in the Information.
The
trial court granted the Motion and ordered the Office of the Provincial
Fiscal to conduct a preliminary investigation with respect to
Bernardino
and Teodulo. On July 15, 1993, the 2nd Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor
submitted his Resolution dated July 13, 1993 finding that the two John
Does in the original Information identified in open court by Rodrigo
Hungoy
are in fact Bernardino Kirit and Teodulo Kitay.[3]
Thus, the RTC allowed the inclusion of appellants Bernardino and
Teodulo
as co-accused in the commission of the crime of double murder.
Upon
arraignment, they pleaded not guilty to the crime charged against them.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The facts established
by the prosecution evidence are as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the evening of July
23, 1992, first cousins, Rodrigo Hungoy and Mardie Balasabas together
with
Mardie’s brothers, Syrel and Exor, were resting inside the house of one
Pacifico Gualingco at Sitio Balatican, Barangay Casalaan, Siaton Negros
Oriental. The four companions are cultivating the farmland owned
by Pacifico and were staying at the house built on the middle of the
farm.
The house has two floors, the second floor being two and a half feet
above
the ground and accessible through a stair inside the "sala" of the
house.
Syrel and Exor were sleeping on the second floor while Rodrigo and
Mardie
were lying near the kitchen on the first floor. About 9:00 of the
same evening, the barking of the dog awakened Rodrigo and Mardie.
They peeped through the porch and looked at the front yard where they
saw
three persons in the yard who they did not immediately recognize
because
it was dark. The three persons proceeded to the upper portion of
the house and pushed the main door which was not locked. Syrel
and
Exor remained asleep while Rodrigo and Mardie jumped out and hid at the
back portion of the house which was not illuminated. They again
peeped
through a hole in the bamboo walling of the house which was already
dilapidated.
There, Rodrigo and Mardie recognized the faces of the three appellants
because the room where Syrel and Exor were sleeping was illuminated by
a "tingkaro", a kerosene lamp. The three went near Syrel and
Exor.
With the use of a bolo, Catalino and Bernardino proceeded to hack Syrel
while Teodulo hacked Exor. After witnessing the hacking of Syrel
and Exor, Rodrigo and Mardie went straight to the house of Rodrigo
which
is about 150 meters away from the house where the incident
happened.
Rodrigo went directly inside the house ahead of Mardie. Mardie,
on
the other hand, went to another house which is approximately ten meters
away from Rodrigo’s house, occupied by his parents. He informed
Rodrigo’s
father and one Ricardo Palomar about the hacking of Syrel and
Exor.
Rodrigo’s father then advised Mardie to go inside the house where
Rodrigo
was and to close the door.[4]
The following morning Rodrigo and Mardie informed the latter’s mother,
Lita Balasabas about the incident that happened the previous
night.
Together with some relatives and neighbors they then went to the house
where the incident occurred and found the dead bodies of Syrel and
Exor.
They placed the cadavers in coffins and brought them to the "poblacion"
and had them autopsied. After securing the death certificates of
her sons, Lita, together with other companions went to the police to
report
the incident. They then buried the bodies on the same day.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The principal defense
of appellants is alibi. In support thereof, six witnesses were
presented,
namely: Juan Pahayat, appellant Bernardino Kirit, Victoria Kirit,
Ricardo
Palomar, appellant Catalino Melendres, Jr., and Editha delos Santos.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Juan Pahayat testified
as follows: From July 20, 1992 until July 25, 1992, he slept at
the
house of appellant Bernardino Kirit located at Baliw, Casalaan, Siaton,
Negros Oriental because he was then helping Bernardino build a small
house
for the employer of the latter. Around 7:00 in the evening of
July
23, 1992, he, together with appellants Bernardino and Teodulo, went to
the house of appellant Catalino which is about 25 meters away from the
house of Bernardino. They cooked food for Catalino who was then
sick
with measles and was unable to take care of his young nephew and niece
who were his only companions in the house. They stayed for three
hours and left at 10:00 of the same evening. Sitio Balatican
where
the incident happened is about ten kilometers away from Sitio Baliw and
there is no means of transportation. It would take about two
hours
to travel by foot to and from these places.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Bernardino
Kirit testified as follows: In the evening of July 23, 1992, he
was
inside his house at Baliw, Casalaan, Siaton, Negros Oriental.
Around
7:00 of that evening, his neighbor, co-appellant Catalino, summoned for
him. Catalino requested him to fetch his carabao and cow, to feed
his pigs and to cook their food because he had fever. Bernardino,
in turn, asked for the help of their neighbor, co-appellant Teodulo
Kitay,
to help him fetch and feed the animals. Bernardino finished
cooking
around 8:00 of the same evening. Thereafter, he served food to
Catalino
and his nephew and niece who were Catalino’s companions in his
house.
Catalino further requested Bernardino to let the children sleep first
before
they leave the house. Bernardino acceded to Catalino’s request
and,
together with Teodulo, left Catalino’s house at 10:00 in the evening,
after
the children have gone to sleep. Sitio Baliw is about ten
kilometers
from Sitio Balatican. There is no means of transportation to and
from those places and it would take more than two hours to travel by
walking.
Prior to June 30, 1993, when they were identified by prosecution
witness
Rodrigo Hungoy, he and co-appellant Teodulo Kitay already met
prosecution
witness Rodrigo Hungoy when Bernardino appeared as a witness for
Catalino
before the Municipal Trial Court of Siaton.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bernardino’s wife, Victoria
Kirit, testified as follows: Catalino Melendres is their
neighbor,
his house being about twenty-five meters away from theirs. On the
night of July 23, 1992, Catalino asked for assistance from
Bernardino.
Bernardino, together with his co-appellant uncle, Teodulo Kitay,
responded
to Catalino’s call for help and went to the house of the latter.
Around twenty minutes after the two were gone, Victoria followed and
also
went to the house of Catalino. Upon arriving at the house of
Catalino
around 7:20 in the evening, she saw Bernardino cooking food while
Teodulo
was feeding the pigs. She also saw Catalino lying down because he
had fever while his nephew and niece were sitting in a corner of the
house.
Victoria did not stay long and went home after ten minutes. It
was
around 10:00 of the same evening that her husband Bernardino arrived
home.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Ricardo Palomar testified
as follows: Around 5:00 in the afternoon of July 23, 1992 he was
at Barangay Casala-an, Siaton, Negros Oriental, near the house of
Loreta
Balasabas, tending his carabao. There, he saw one Bebing Salit
holding
a bolo and sitting on a banana trunk near the house of Loreta.
When
the sun set, Ricardo brought his carabao to a pool near the house of
Loreta,
after which he went home to take supper. Around 9:00 in the
evening
of the same day, he went back to where his carabao was. He saw
Bebing
Salit going down the house of Loreta carrying a bunch of chickens in
his
left hand and a bolo in his right hand. Ricardo then took his
carabao
home. The following morning Ricardo learned that Syrel and Exor
Balasabas
were killed.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Catalino Melendres,
Jr. testified as follows: He knew Syrel but he was not acquainted
with Exor; co-appellants Bernardino Kirit and Teodulo Kitay are his
neighbors
at Sitio Baliw, Barangay Casalaan, Siaton, Negros Oriental; Sitio Baliw
is, more or less, ten kilometers away from Sitio Balatican; Sitio
Balatican can be reached by foot or by riding on a horse or
carabao but not through a motor vehicle. He claimed that at 9:00
in the evening of July 23, 1992, he was in his house at Sitio Baliw
accompanied
by his nephew and niece. He was then afflicted with chicken pox
and
had fever. Since he was sick, he requested his co-appellant
Bernardino
Kirit to prepare their food. Bernardino responded to his plea and
went to his house around 7:00 in the evening. Aside from
Bernardino,
his other co-appellant Teodulo Kitay and Juan Pahayat also went to his
house. Teodulo accompanied him and his nephew and niece
Bernardino
while Juan arrived an hour later. Juan did not stay long and went
home an hour after arriving. On the other hand, both appellants
Bernardino
and Teodulo accompanied them until 10:00 in the evening.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On February 27, 1998,
the trial court rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE,
all the foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1.
Declaring
all the three (3) accused Catalino Melendres, Jr. alias ‘Jun-Jun’,
Bernardino
Kirit and Teodulo Kitay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Double Murder of Syrel and Exor Balasabas and considering the presence
of conspiracy, the Court hereby imposes the penalty of imprisonment for
two (2) Reclusion Perpetua together with all the accessory penalties
and
to indemnify the heirs of the victims (Syrel and Exor Balasabas) the
amount
of Fifty Thousand Pesos, for each accused without subsidiary
imprisonment
in case of insolvency.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. In
the
service of their sentence, the above-named accused shall be credited
with
the full time of their preventive imprisonment in accordance with
Article
29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 6127, if the
conditions
prescribed therein have been complied.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.
Hence, the instant
appeal
with the following Assignment of Errors: I
THAT THE HONORABLE
LOWER
COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE
DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF DOUBLE MURDER AS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II
THE HONORABLE LOWER
COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT TO THE TESTIMONIES OF RODRIGO
HUNGOY,
FIRST COUSIN OF THE VICTIMS AND WHO APPEARED TO BE MENTALLY DERANGED
AND
MARDIE BALASABAS, BROTHER OF THE VICTIMS, AND WHOSE TESTIMONIES ARE ALL
INCREDIBLE AND NOT WORTHY OF ANY CREDENCE AND BELIEF
III
AND, THAT THE
HONORABLE
LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING ALL THE ACCUSED FOR
INSUFFICIENCY
OF EVIDENCE AND/OR AT LEAST ON THE HYPOTHESES OF REASONABLE DOUBT
Appellants attribute
error on the part of the trial court in giving weight and credence to
the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses Rodrigo Hungoy and Mardie
Balasabas.
The well-established rule is that, on the issue of credibility, the
trial
court is in a better position than the appellate court because the
former
had the full opportunity to observe directly the deportment and manner
of testifying of the witness.[11]
Thus, unless the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of
substance
and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case,
its
assessment on credibility must be respected.[12]
In the present case, we find no reason to disturb the trial court’s
evaluation
and assessment of the credibility of Rodrigo and Mardie, the same not
being
tainted by any arbitrariness or palpable error.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to the alleged mental
derangement of Rodrigo, it is true that during his testimony in open
court
on December 15, 1993, he was uncooperative, defiant and even
disrespectful
to the court. The trial court even cited him for direct contempt
and ordered his incarceration. However, it appeared from the
order
of the trial court that Rodrigo’s defiance at that time was not a
result
of his alleged mental incapacity but because he was drunk.
Moreover,
while the prosecution admitted that Rodrigo has experienced "some
mental
shock sometime ago", no evidence was presented by the defense to
impeach
him on ground of incompetence. On the other hand, a review of the
transcript of stenographic notes taken during the four days that
Rodrigo
testified and underwent examination on the witness stand reveals that,
except for the incident on December 15, 1993, he is responsive to the
questions
propounded and was able to convey sufficiently intelligent
answers.
Under Section 20, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, all persons
who
can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to
others,
may be witnesses.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellants further assail
the credibility of Mardie and Rodrigo, by putting the following in
issue:
First, they claim that if Rodrigo and Mardie were indeed present at the
scene of the crime on the night of July 23, 1992, why did they not
shout
or do anything which could have prevented or stopped the assailants
from
killing Syrel and Exor. We have held that the workings of the
human
mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable and that
people
react differently.[13]
There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a
shocking
incident especially if the assailant is physically near.[14]
In the present case, appellants expect that Rodrigo and Mardie should
have
done something to stop the assailants from attacking Syrel and
Exor.
However, considering the proximity of appellants to the place where
Rodrigo
and Mardie were hiding and since both of them were then unarmed and
outnumbered,
it is not unexpected, and in fact, it is consistent with the instinct
of
self-preservation, that they should remain silent for fear that if
appellants
discover their presence, they will also be attacked. This is
confirmed
by the testimony of Mardie, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: Alright,
now alarmed already because they are with weapons, did it not occur to
you to also to awaken your brothers considering the immediate peril of
your life and their lives?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A:
I did not awake them because we were frightened.cralaw:red
Q: You did
not even as much as or in the least, shout on top of your voice while
you
were jumping considering that the others were your two brothers no less?
A:
We did not shout because we might be included.[15]
Second, appellants question
the failure of Mardie to immediately inform her mother of the incident
involving his brothers considering the nearness of their house to the
house
of Rodrigo where they went after witnessing the said incident. We
agree with the observation of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
that after witnessing the brutal hacking of his brothers, Mardie must
have
already been gripped by fear that he chose to remain in the house of
Rodrigo
rather than immediately go home. Moreover, he was advised by his
uncle to go inside their house and lock the doors. Young as he
was,
fifteen at that time, it was perfectly normal for him to follow the
advise
of his uncle.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third, appellants claim
that it was only after a month that Rodrigo and Mardie reported the
killings
to the police authorities. Such delay, appellants insists, casts
grave and serious doubts on the veracity of their testimonies.
Records
show that the affidavits of Rodrigo and Mardie were taken on August 24,
1992 and August 25, 1992, respectively, or a month after the hacking
incident.
The apparent delay in reporting the incident was adequately explained
by
Rodrigo and Mardie. Mardie testified that he had verbally
"related"
the killings to the police the day after the said incident.[16]
The police investigated him but his affidavit was not taken; instead,
he
was told to go back.[17]
On the other hand, Rodrigo testified as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: According
to the records of this case, your affidavit was taken on August 24,
1992.
Are we to understand that, that was your first time to go to the police
station of Siaton and report on what you allegedly saw on the night of
July 23, 1992?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A:
In Siaton.cralaw:red
Q: Yes.
And that was your first time to report. Is that correct?
A:
Yes.cralaw:red
Q: You have
not reported to any police authorities from July 23, 1992 up to August
23, 1992, because according to your affidavit, your affidavit was taken
only on August 24, 1992. Is that correct?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A:
How can I tell them they know already the incident.cralaw:red
Q: How do
you know that they know the incident?
A:
They attended the time of the burial.[18]
Hence, it is clear from
the foregoing testimony of Rodrigo that he is of the belief that the
police
authorities already have actual knowledge of the killing because they
attended
the burial of Syrel and Exor. Hence, his ignorance of the
necessity
of immediately executing an affidavit before the police authorities
regarding
the incident that he witnessed on July 23, 1992 cannot be taken against
him. Considering that he only finished sixth grade and that he is
suffering from some form of mental deficiency, he cannot be faulted in
believing that it is no longer necessary to make a formal report to the
police authorities because they already have actual knowledge of the
killing
of Syrel and Exor. Delay in making a criminal accusation will not
necessarily impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is
satisfactorily
explained.[19]
In this case, we find the explanation of Mardie and Rodrigo to be
satisfactory.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fourth, appellants point
out the alleged inconsistency in the testimonies of Rodrigo and Mardie
as to whether or not they witnessed the crime through a hole in the
wall
of the house where they were sleeping or through the side of the house
which has no wall. Again, this was adequately explained by
Mardie,
as follows:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: You
remember having testified during the preliminary investigation
conducted
by the Honorable Trial Court of Siaton?
A:
Yes.cralaw:red
Q: And you
were asked questions by the Court?
A:
Yes.cralaw:red
Q: You were
asked this question. I am reading page 3, Your Honor of the
transcript
of the proceedings in the preliminary investigation conducted on August
25, 1992, quote: ‘Do you mean to say Mr. Balasabas that the house has
no
wall that you can immediately see what’s happening inside the
house?’
Answer: ‘There were three sides of the house with wallings while the
other
side has no wall’ So, are we agreed to that, that according to your
testimony
one side of the house was without any wall?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A:
There is one side that the wall is not completed.cralaw:red
ATTY. DICEN:
Q: You said
that one side of the house has an incomplete walling, are you therefore
telling this Honorable Court that when you declared before the
municipal
trial court that the other side has no walling at all, you were telling
a lie because you are telling the truth now?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A:
What I mean is that, the three sides of the house has complete
wallings,
while the other side, the remaining one, has walling but it is not
complete.
So, I said only that there was no walling.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Discrepancies and inconsistencies
in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in
actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair
their
credibility.[21]
In the present case, granting that there were inconsistencies in the
testimonies
of Rodrigo and Mardie, the same may be considered only as minor
discrepancies
that do not affect their credibility. In fact, minor
inconsistencies
in the testimonies of witnesses bolster rather then weaken their
credibility
as they erase any suspicion that their testimonies have been rehearsed.[22]
What is important is that both Rodrigo and Mardie were consistent in
positively
identifying the three appellants as the persons who hacked Syrel and
Exor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellants interpose
the defense of alibi. For the defense of alibi to prosper,
appellants
must not only prove their presence at another place at the time of the
commission of the offense, but they must also demonstrate that it would
be physically impossible for them to be at the locus criminis at the
time
of the commission of the crime.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the present case,
the inconsistencies in the testimonies of defense witnesses make
appellants’
alibi highly dubious. The crime of double murder was committed on
July 23, 1992 at 9:00 in the evening. Aside from the self-serving
testimonies of Bernardino and Catalino, the only persons who can attest
to the presence of the appellants in the house of Catalino between 7:00
and 10:00 in the evening of July 23, 1992 are Victoria Kirit and Juan
Pahayat.
Victoria testified that while she was inside the house of Catalino, the
only persons present were the three appellants and the nephew and niece
of Catalino.[24]
She never mentioned the presence of Juan Pahayat. Likewise,
although
Bernardino named Teodulo as one of his companions in helping Catalino,
he never mentioned Juan. Yet, both Catalino and Juan testified
that
the latter was present at the house of Catalino on the night of July
23,
1992.[25]
Catalino even claimed that Juan and Victoria were able to talk to each
other.[26]
Moreover, Juan testified that he went to the house of Catalino together
with Bernardino and Teodulo.[27]
They arrived at 7:00 in the evening, helped out in cooking food for
Catalino,
and left at 10:00 of the same evening.[28]
However, Catalino claimed that only Bernardino and Teodulo went to his
house around 7:00 in the evening and that Juan arrived an hour later.[29]
He further testified that Juan stayed only until 9:00 while Bernardino
and Teodulo left at 10:00.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Time and again, we have
held that alibi must be supported by the most convincing evidence since
it is an inherently weak defense which can easily be fabricated.[31]
In the instant case, the inconsistencies in the respective testimonies
of Bernardino and Victoria vis-à-vis the testimonies of Catalino
and Juan are not minor discrepancies because they militate against the
claim of the defense that Juan was at the house of Catalino and saw him
until 10:00 in the evening of July 23, 1992. Because of these
inconsistencies,
we find it difficult to believe that Juan was indeed present in the
house
of Catalino on the above-mentioned date.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, the only person
who could confirm the presence of the appellants in the house of
Catalino
is Victoria, wife of appellant Bernardino. Victoria testified
that
she arrived at the house of Catalino around 7:20 in the evening[32]
and went home after ten minutes.[33]
It was only at 10:00 of the same evening that she again saw her
husband,
Bernardino, when the latter went home.[34]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand, appellants
Catalino and Bernardino testified that they, together with Teodulo,
were
at Catalino’s house from 7:00 until 10:00 in the evening. But no
other competent evidence was presented to support their
allegations.
Thus, the attempt of the defense witnesses to concoct alibi for the
appellants
is much too obvious to ignore. We have held that alibi becomes
less
plausible when it is invoked or sought to be crafted by accused
themselves
and their immediate relatives.[35]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, Catalino,
Bernardino and Juan testified that the distance between Sitio Balatican
and Sitio Baliw is approximately ten kilometers.[36]
This distance can be traversed by hiking in about 2 to 3 hours.[37]
However, Catalino testified that coming from Sitio Baliw, Sitio
Balatican
may also be reached by riding on a carabao or horse[38],
that the road between Sitio Baliw and Sitio Balatican cannot be
negotiated
by means of a motor vehicle. No evidence was presented to negate
the possibility that appellants may have traveled by horse from Sitio
Baliw
to Sitio Balatican. A distance of ten kilometers which can be
traversed
by foot in 2 to 3 hours can easily be negotiated in less than an hour
when
one rides a horse. Hence, for failure to account for their
whereabouts
between the hours of 7:30 and 10:00 in the evening of July 23, 1992,
and
for their failure to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that
it would be physically impossible for them to be present at the scene
of
the crime when it was committed, appellants’ alibi must fail.
Weak
as it is, alibi becomes all the more ineffectual when the accused fails
to demonstrate that is was physically impossible for him to be at the
crime
scene at the time it was committed.[39]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellants’ defense
of alibi is negated in the face of the positive identification made by
prosecution witnesses Rodrigo and Mardie. Well settled is the rule that
positive identification of the accused made by an eyewitness prevails
over
the defense of alibi.[40]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In People vs. Hamton[41],
we held that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Conspiracy exists when
two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. The agreement need not be proven by
direct
evidence; it may be inferred from the conduct of the parties before,
during
and after the commission of the offense pointing to a joint purpose and
design, concerted action and community of interest. Indeed,
jurisprudence
consistently
tells us that conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in
which
the offense was perpetrated.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the instant case,
the prosecution was able to prove conspiracy by establishing that the
three
appellants together approached, entered the house, and immediately went
up the second floor where the victims were sleeping. Simultaneously,
Bernardino
and Catalino hacked Syrel while Teodulo hacked Exor. The synchronized
acts
of the three appellants indubitably point to the conclusion that they
are
moved by a common design, which is to kill the victims. Even the
location of the wounds inflicted on the victims, all on the heads,
necks
and shoulders are mute but strong physical evidence of their deliberate
and concerted efforts to kill the victims, as in fact, they did.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
An appeal in a criminal
case throws the whole case wide open for review; and the appellate
court
can correct error, though unassigned, that may be found in the appealed
judgment.[42]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After a careful examination
of the records of the case, we find that the trial court erred in not
taking
into consideration the aggravating circumstances of treachery and
dwelling
that attended the killing of Syrel and Exor. In the fairly recent case
of People vs. Delim[43],
we held as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Qualifying circumstances
such as treachery and abuse of superior strength must be alleged and
proved
clearly and conclusively as the crime itself. Mere conjectures,
suppositions
or presumptions are utterly insufficient and cannot produce the effect
of qualifying the crime. As this Court held: ‘No matter how truthful
these
suppositions or presumptions may seem, they must not and cannot produce
the effect of aggravating the condition of defendant. Article 14,
paragraph
16 of the Revised Penal code provides that there is treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means,
methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
especially
to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense
which the offended party might make. For treachery to be appreciated as
a qualifying circumstance, the prosecution is burdened to prove the
following
elements: (a) the employment of means or execution which gives the
person
attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; (b) the means
of
execution is deliberately or consciously adopted.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the present case,
the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants’
means of killing the victims was deliberately or consciously adopted.
Syrel
and Exor were sleeping when the appellants attacked them. There is
treachery
when appellants, who knew exactly where to find the victims,
immediately
proceeded to the second floor of the house where Syrel and Exor were
sleeping
at 10:00 in the evening and hacked the two victims to death while they
were sleeping.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The aggravating
circumstance
of dwelling is also present in the instant case. Under Article 14,
paragraph
3 of the Revised Penal Code, dwelling is aggravating if the crime is
committed
in the dwelling of the offended party and the latter has not given
provocation.
As contemplated under the law, dwelling may mean temporary dwelling.[44]
Moreover, dwelling may be aggravating even though the victim was not
the
owner of the house where the crime was committed.[45]
In the present case, it is not disputed that the house owned by
Pacifico
Gualingco where Syrel and Exor were killed was used by the victims as
dwelling.[46]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to the element of
provocation, the evidence of the prosecution has sufficiently
established
that no provocation, which is sufficient and immediate to the
commission
of the crime, was given by either or both of the victims.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, the aggravating
circumstances of abuse of superior strength and nighttime need not be
appreciated
as these are already absorbed by treachery.[47]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the time when the
crime was committed in 1992, murder was punishable by reclusion
temporal
maximum to death.[48]
The presence of an aggravating circumstance would have called for the
imposition
of the maximum penalty, which is death. However, the imposition
of
the death penalty was then proscribed by Article III, Section 19 (1) of
the 1987 Constitution[49],
which reduced death penalties to reclusion perpetua. It was only
on December 31, 1993 that R.A. 7659, the law which provides for the
reimposition
of the death penalty for certain heinous crimes, took effect.[50]
Thus, considering that the crime was committed on July 23, 1992 or
prior
to the effectivity of R.A. 7659,[51]
the death penalty may not be imposed in the present case. Acco
rdingly,
the penalty next higher in degree, which is reclusion perpetua, for
each
count of murder, was correctly imposed by the trial court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Although damages to
the heirs of the deceased victims are not alleged in the Information,
it
is a settled rule that damages may be awarded.[52]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There are two sets
of heirs in the present case - those of the deceased Syrel Balasabas
and
those of the deceased Exor Balasabas. Consequently, appellants
should
be ordered to pay each set of heirs the amount of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity
for the death of each of the victims.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In view of the testimony
of Lita Balasabas that she suffered mental anguish for the death of her
sons, Syrel and Exor, we find that the award of moral damages in the
amount
of P100,000.00 (P50,000.00 for the death of each set of heirs of
the victims) is proper and in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[53]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to actual damages,
while Lita Balasabas testified that they incurred burial and other
expenses
resulting from the death of Syrel and Exor, no competent evidence was
presented
to prove her claim.[54]
Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code, a party is entitled to
compensation
only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly
proved.
However, under Article 2224 of the same Code, temperate damages may be
recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been
suffered
but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with
certainty.
In the present case, the heirs of Syrel and Exor Balasabas clearly
incurred
funeral and burial expenses. Hence, we find that an award of
P50,000.00
or (P25,000.00, for the death of each set of heirs of the victims) by
way
of temperate damages is justified.[55]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental (Branch 44) finding
Catalino
Melendres, Jr., Bernardino Kirit and Teodulo Kitay guilty of the crime
of MURDER beyond reasonable doubt, imposing the penalty of reclusion
perpetua
on two counts, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION to the effect that
appellants
are ordered to pay the heirs of Syrel Balasabas and the heirs of Exor
Balasabas
the sum P100,000.00 (P50,000.00 for each set of heirs) as civil
indemnity
P100,000.00, as moral damages (P50,000.00 for each set of heirs) and
P50,000.00
as temperate damages (P25,000.00 for each set of heirs).cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman),
Quisumbing, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Records, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id., p. 44.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., pp. 58 and 64.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., p. 31.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Testimony of Rodrigo Huangoy, TSN, June 30, 1993, pp. 14 to 30;
December
14, 1993, pp. 42 to 46. Testimony of Marlice Balasabas, TSN,
December
20, 1993, pp. 13 to 35; Testimony of Lita Balasabas, January 14, 1994,
pp. 12 to 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
TSN, October 13, 1995.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
TSN, December 20, 1995.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
TSN, October 22, 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
TSN, December 13, 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Testimony of Catalino Melendres, Jr., TSN, April 11, 1997.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
People vs. Hernandez, 368 SCRA 247, 257 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
People vs. Tipay, 329 SCRA 52, 60 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
People vs. Alfeche, 294 SCRA 352, 374 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
People vs. Alquizalas, 305 SCRA 367, 374 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
TSN, December 20, 1993, pp. 72-73.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Testimony of Mardie Balasabas, TSN, December 21, 1993, p. 15.
[17]
Id., pp. 15-16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
TSN, December 16, 1992, p. 34.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
People vs. Abendan, 360 SCRA 106, 123 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
TSN, December 21, 1993, pp. 6-8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
People vs. Magno, September 25, 1998; People vs. Uy, 338 SCRA 232, 245
(2000).
[22]
Salvatierra, Sr. vs. People, 364 SCRA 173, 186 (2001).
[23]
People vs. Mercado, 367 SCRA 252, 261 (2001).
[24]
Id., p. 22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Testimony of Catalino Melendres, Jr., TSN, April 11, 1997, p. 18;
Testimony
of Juan Pahayat, TSN, October 13, 1995, p. 13.
[26]
Testimony of Catalino Melendres, Jr., supra, p. 46.
[27]
Testimony of Juan Pahayat, supra, pp. 13, 30-31.
[28]
Id., p. 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Testimony of Juan Pahayat, supra, pp. 18-19.
[30]
Id., p. 43.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
People vs. Makilang, 368 SCRA 155, 167 (2001); People vs. Lobitania,
G.R.
No. 142380, September 5, 2002; People vs. Libnao, G.R. No. 136860,
January
20, 2003.
[32]
TSN, October 22, 1996, pp. 15, 21-22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
Id., pp. 25-26.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
People vs. Patawaran, 274 SCRA 130, 144 (1997); People vs. Cortez, 348
SCRA 663, 669 (2000); People vs. Peleras, 365 SCRA 220, 235 (2001);
Peoplevs.
Legaspi, 331 SCRA 95, 113 (2000).
[36]
Testimony of Juan Pahayat, TSN, October 13, 1995, p. 7; Testimony of
Bernardino
Kirit, TSN, December 20, 1995, pp. 20-21; Testimony of Catalino
Melendres,
Jr., TSN, April 11, 1997, p. 11.
[37]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
People vs. Muyco, 331 SCRA 192, 199 (2000); Legaspi case, supra.
[40]
People vs. Llanita, 364 SCRA 505, 517 (2001); Legaspi case, supra.
[41]
G.R. Nos. 134823-25, January 14, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
People vs. Court of Appeals, 308 SCRA 687, 703 (1999); People vs.
Calayca,
301 SCRA 192, 205-206 (1999).
[43]
G.R. No. 142773, January 28, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
People vs. Badilla, 185 SCRA 554, 570 (1990); People vs. Sto. Tomas,
138
SCRA 206, 219 (1985).
[45]
People vs. Parazo, 272 SCRA 512, 523 (1997); People vs. Badilla, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
Testimony of Rodrigo Hungoy, TSN, June 30, 1993, pp. 15-16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
People vs. De Vera, 312 SCRA 640, 669 (1999). People vs. Bardon, 165
SCRA
416, 426 (1988)
[48]
Article 248, Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
"Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be imposed,
unless,
for compelling reasons involving heinous Crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
People vs. Unarce, 272 SCRA 321, 323 (1997); People vs. Midmotod, 283
SCRA
395, 405-406 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[51]
People vs. Flores, 252 SCRA 31, 42 (1996); People vs. Abrenica, 252
SCRA
54, 63 (1996); People vs. Midmotod, supra.
[52]
People vs. Ballenas, 330 SCRA 519, 538 (2000); People vs. Orosa, 83
Phil.
633, 636 (1949).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[53]
People vs. Salva, G.R. No. 132351, January 10, 2002; Angcaco vs.
People,
G.R. No. 146664, February 28, 2002; People vs. Casitas, Jr., G.R. No.
137404,
February 14, 2003.
[54]
Testimony of Lita Balasabas, TSN, July 27, 1994, pp. 5 and 8-9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[55]
People vs. Alcodia, G.R. No. 134121, March 6, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |