Republic of the
Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
139178
April 14, 2004
-versus-
FLORENCIO CALICA,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is an appeal from
the decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan City, Branch 23, in Criminal
Case
No. 2423 convicting appellant Florencio Calica of murder under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and
ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Igmedio Pispis in the amount of
P50,000.
A criminal complaint
for multiple murder against Florencio Calica, Ernesto Calica, John Doe,
Peter Doe and Richard Doe was filed in the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court
of Makilala, Cotabato, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2070.[2]
Appended to the complaint was the sworn statement executed by Dominga
Pispis
with the assistance of Atty. Solema Jubilan dated January 13, 1986
taken
by T/Sgt. Ricarte Marquez.[3]
Dominga testified during the preliminary investigation. Municipal Judge
Elena B. De Leon thereafter issued an Order[4]
dated March 13, 1987 dismissing the case as to Ernesto Calica on the
ground
of lack of prima facie evidence and issued a warrant of arrest[5]
against the appellant on the same date. As the appellant and his
co-accused
remained at large, an alias warrant of arrest[6]
was issued on April 7, 1988. The appellant was finally arrested
sometime
in 1991.[7]
However, then Acting Judge Moises C. Carbonell issued a Resolution[8]
dated July 4, 1991 dismissing the case for insufficiency of evidence as
the court disbelieved the testimony of Dominga. The provincial fiscal,
on review, reversed the resolution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
An Information was thereafter
filed on November 19, 1991 before the Regional Trial Court of
Kidapawan,
Cotabato, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2423, charging the appellant
with
multiple murder, thus:
That at around 2:00
o’clock in the morning of December 23, 1986, at Barangay Malabuan,
Municipality
of Makilala, Province of Cotabato, Philippines, the aforenamed accused,
in company with several masked and unidentified persons, conspiring,
confederating
together, and mutually helping one another, did then and there,
willfully,
unlawfully feloniously and treacherously attack, assault and fired upon
JOSEPH MONTILLA, LUIS VALDEZ, JR., IGMIDIO (sic) PISPIS, ROLANDO
GONZALES
and CARLITO ROLLUDA (sic), thereby hitting and inflicting upon the said
individuals, multiple gunshot wounds in the different parts of their
bodies,
which caused their death.cralaw:red
With further aggravating
circumstances of:
1. Committed at nighttime,
in an uninhabited place and by a band, to facilitate the commission of
the crime;
2. Evident premeditation;
and
3. Taking advantage
of superior strength.cralaw:red
CONTRARY TO LAW.[9]
A warrant for the arrest
of the appellant was issued on November 20, 1991.[10]
An alias warrant of arrest[11]
was issued on June 11, 1993 as the appellant remained at large. The
appellant
was again arrested and later ordered committed to the Provincial Warden
of the Cotabato Provincial Jail on September 2, 1993.[12]
The appellant moved
for a reinvestigation[13]
of the case in view of the emergence of two new witnesses, Elias Palog
and Agustin Alonzo. The court granted the same.[14]
The provincial prosecutor, however, recommended that trial of the case
continue, as the allegation of the two witnesses, that the appellant
was
not present at the scene of the crime was not enough to overturn the
original
resolution which recommended the filing of the information.[15]
The appellant, assisted
by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge during his arraignment on
December 13, 1993.[16]
Trial forthwith ensued.
The Case for the
Prosecution[17]
Spouses Igmedio and
Dominga Pispis resided at Barangay Malabuan, Makilala, Cotabato. They
had
two daughters, one of whom was Dolores. The Pispis family lived in a
hut
that stood on a farm on which rubber trees grew.[18]
At around 1:00 a.m.
of December 23, 1986, while the Pispis family slept, Rolando "Boy"
Gonzales,
a neighbor, and fellow Ilocanos called out and asked about "Nong Tony."
Dominga woke up and peeped through the unfinished portion of the wall
of
their house. She saw Gonzales, his hands tied at the back, and an armed
man positioned in front of their door. Two more men, similarly armed,
stood
beside the house, firearms pointed towards it, while still two others
were
sitting on a carabao sled (kangga) nearby. The armed men wore bonnets
over
their heads.cralaw:red
Dominga went down to
answer the door. Igmedio followed suit, but had to go back to get his
pants
on account of the cold. One of the armed men shouted and ordered that
the
light be put off. The men then shouted to Igmedio, "Dalian mo!," upon
which
Dominga went back upstairs. She noticed that her husband was sobbing.[19]
Outside, they were suddenly surrounded by five men who were wearing
bonnets[20]
and armed with long firearms.[21]
One of the men put an arm on Igmedio’s shoulder and forced the latter
to
go with them. Dominga tried to follow them and placed her arm on her
husband,
but the armed man parried her gesture.[22]
The armed men, with her husband in tow, proceeded to walk away. One of
the men asked Igmedio why his shirt was torn, to which the latter
replied,
"It’s alright, sir." Dominga, for her part, climbed up on the roof of
their
house and saw the group head towards the direction of the house of
Regino
Taruma, which also led to the rubber plantation owned by a certain Irma
Martinez, her husband’s employer.[23]
Dominga recognized one
of the men as the appellant, Florencio Calica, who also happened to be
her husband’s second cousin and a member of the Civilian Home Defense
Force
(CHDF) of Bato.[24]
The appellant, who was wearing black pants and a long-sleeved uniform,
positioned himself in front of the door of the hut, his firearm pointed
towards Igmedio. He, like the other armed men, had a bonnet over his
head;
only the eyes, nose and mouth were visible. The appellant’s bonnet,
however,
was loose. Dominga was almost face to face with the appellant, about
merely
half an arm’s length away,[25]
and saw his face in the moonlight.[26]
Then eleven-year-old
Dolores, who was awakened by the commotion, also recognized the
appellant,
her uncle. His bonnet was loosened.[27]
She watched from inside the house, and peeped through the unfinished
portion
of the wall.[28]
Dolores saw Rolando Gonzales, Joseph Montilla, Luis Valdez, Jr. and her
father being taken away by the armed men.cralaw:red
Not long thereafter,
while Dominga and her children were praying for her husband’s safety,
they
heard several bursts of gunfire. Igmedio never returned. His body was
found
at about 6:00 a.m. near a quarry in Malabuan, about one kilometer away
from Barangay Villaflores.[29]
The lifeless bodies of four others were found: Carlito Rulloda, Luis
Valdez,
Jr., Rolando Gonzales, and Joseph Montilla.[30]
They were hogtied.[31]
In the meantime, Lorena
Valdez was with her family at their house in Barangay Villaflores,
Makilala,
Cotabato – her husband Luis Valdez, Jr., her brother Joseph Montilla,
and
her young children. Suddenly, armed men wearing masks came and took her
husband and her brother away. The next time Lorena saw them was in the
quarry, their lifeless bodies lying on the ground.[32]
Meanwhile, Barangay
Captain Andrino Garcia was informed that people were killed in the
rubber
plantation.[33]
He went there and saw the dead bodies of five men, including that of
his
godson, Igmedio Pispis, and his nephew, Rulloda. He then proceeded to
the
Makilala municipal hall and reported the matter to the authorities.[34]
The police went to the scene of the crime and loaded the lifeless
bodies
onto a vehicle to be brought to the funeral parlor.[35]
Garcia then instructed the relatives of the victim to go to the
municipal
hall to report everything they saw.[36]
The respective certificates
of death issued by Dr. Gervacio L. Albano indicate that the victims
died
of multiple gunshot wounds, and that the approximate time of death was
at 2:00 a.m. of December 23, 1986.[37]
The Case for the
Defense
Agustin Alonzo testified
that he was a native of Barangay Bato, Makilala, Cotabato, and a CHDF
volunteer.
At about 2:00 a.m. of December 23, 1986, he saw CHDF Commander Pedro
Lopez
who asked to be accompanied to Malabuan. Commander Lopez was with six
people
whose faces were covered. When they reached Malabuan, the men "picked
up"
people, including Igmedio, who were suspected members of the New
People’s
Army (NPA).[38]
When he saw that the men who were taken were killed, he ran away.
Alonzo
also testified that he had known the appellant since the latter was a
boy.
He was not among the armed men involved in the abduction and killing.cralaw:red
Elias Palog, also a
resident of Barangay Bato, Makilala, Cotabato, testified that he was a
CAFGU member and a CHDF volunteer. He claimed that at around 8:00 a.m.
of December 22, 1986, he was in the house of Commander Lopez at
Barangay
Bato. They talked about "getting some people" (kuhaonon) at Malabuan
who
were members of the NPA, particularly the victim Igmedio Pispis who was
a member of the HUKBALAHAP. He stated that the appellant was not among
the group who was with Pedro Lopez.[39]
Elpidio Asidre testified
that he was a farmer and a resident of Barangay Bato, Makilala,
Cotabato,
since 1959. He and the appellant were neighbors,[40]
as their houses were about a hundred meters away from each other.[41]
On December 22, 1986, Asidre was at his house preparing for the death
anniversary
of his mother. The appellant had arrived at 8:00 a.m. that morning to
help
him butcher a pig and a goat for the occasion.[42]
The appellant, along with Rudy Llanado, helped in preparing 80 kilos of
the meat. The appellant stayed in the house until 3:00 p.m. the
following
day, December 23, 1986.[43]
Asidre testified that the appellant never left the house the entire
time.[44]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Asidre also testified
that the house of the victim Igmedio Pispis in Barangay Malabuan was
about
ten kilometers away, or a three-to-four hour hike from his place. There
were no other means of transportation at the time due to the difficult
road conditions.[45]
The witness added that it was impossible for the appellant to have
committed
the crime charged because the latter was in their house helping with
the
preparations.[46]
Rudy Llanado testified
that he was married and had been a resident of Barangay Bato, Makilala,
for twenty years. The appellant, as well as Asidre, were his neighbors.
The appellant’s wife, Estrella Llanado Calica, was his sister.[47]
He corroborated Asidre’s testimony that there was a special occasion in
the latter’s house on December 22, 1986. He stated that he arrived in
Asidre’s
house to help with the preparations at 3:00 p.m. that day. There were
about
thirty persons in the house, including the appellant. Llanado left the
place at about 3:00 p.m. the next day.[48]
According to Llanado,
he and the appellant sliced the meat of the butchered pig and served
food
and drinks to the visitors. The appellant never left Asidre’s house. He
was, thus, surprised when the appellant was implicated in the killing.[49]
Alfredo Aca testified
that he was a rubber tapper by profession and that he resided at
Malabuan,
Makilala, Cotabato. His house was about 200 meters away from that of
Igmedio
Pispis.[50]
He knew the appellant even as a little boy.[51]
In the evening of December 22, 1986, he was awakened by calls from six
persons. They were armed, and asked for coffee. Before they left, the
men
asked him for directions to Igmedio Pispis’ residence. Aca merely
pointed
to the house, reasoning that he could not accompany them as his wife
had
just recently delivered a baby. The witness testified that the
appellant
was not among the armed men.cralaw:red
The appellant denied
the charge lodged against him. He testified that he was a farmer and a
long-time resident of Barangay Bato, Makilala, Cotabato. He confirmed
his
earlier testimony to the effect that it would take one three hours to
get
to Barangay Malabuan from Barangay Bato on foot, as the road was very
difficult
and one has to pass two mountains to get there.[52]
Another option was to travel by horseback.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At 8:00 a.m. of December
22, 1986, he went to the house of Elpidio Asidre to help in the food
preparations
for the death anniversary of the latter’s mother. There present were
Rudy
Llanado, Asidre, the latter’s daughter, and some visitors. He stayed
there
until about 3:00 p.m. of the next day because aside from serving food
to
the visitors, he joined the merrymaking and the drinking spree that
followed.
He was unable to sleep on the evening of December 22, 1986, as they
were
in the process of butchering the pigs and goats. He never left the
house.cralaw:red
The trial court thereafter
rendered a decision convicting the appellant of murder, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
In view of all the foregoing,
this Court finds and so holds that for the killing of Igmedio Pispis,
accused
Florencio Calica is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of
Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code. Appreciating the aggravating circumstances of committing the
crime
in the nighttime and by a band and without any mitigating circumstances
attending to its commission, accused Florencio Calica shall serve the
penalty
of Reclusion Perpetua. His detention from April 25, 1991 to July 4,
1991
and
subsequent detention
from August 24, 1993 to July 13, 1994 is credited in full in his favor.
He is directed to pay costs.cralaw:red
Accused Florencio Calica
is directed to indemnify the heirs of deceased I[g]midio (sic) Pispis
the
sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos.cralaw:red
The property bond posted
for his provisional liberty is cancelled and released. The Register of
Deeds of Cotabato is directed to cancel the annotation in Transfer
Certificate
of Title No. T-51977. The Warden of the Provincial Rehabilitation
Center
of Cotabato is directed to take him into custody.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[53]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On appeal before this
Court, the appellant ascribes the following errors to the court a quo:
I
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE
FAILURE
OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.[54]
The appellant insists
that the prosecution utterly failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable
doubt of the crime charged. Not one of the witnesses presented by the
prosecution
personally witnessed the abduction and killing of the victim Igmedio
Pispis.
The appellant asserts that there was no evidence that he was present
during
the meeting called by CHDF Commander Pedro Lopez. Defense witnesses
Elias
Palog and Agustin Alonzo did not testify that the appellant was among
those
who attended the meeting of December 22, 1986 and abducted and killed
Igmedio.
Considering that the trial court based its findings on their testimony
which were exculpatory of the appellant, it clearly erred when it
convicted
him.cralaw:red
The appellant, likewise,
asserts that there is doubt as to the veracity of the identification
made
by Dominga Pispis and Dolores Gonzales; one claimed that she was able
to
identify the appellant because his blindfold was lost, while the other
claimed that he had a loosened bonnet. The appellant points out that a
bonnet and a blindfold are two different things. It would have been
reckless
of him to have worn a loose bonnet, thus exposing his face, since he
was
known to Dominga, Igmedio and their daughter. Furthermore, the
prosecution
failed to prove any motive on his part to kill the victim, especially
considering
that the victim was his own cousin. As a consequence, the appellant
asserts
that he was convicted on the basis of mere circumstantial evidence,
which
has not been adequately established much less corroborated. Hence, it
cannot
by itself be the basis of conviction. Finally, according to the
appellant,
he did not even have to establish the defense of alibi since the
prosecution
was unable to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence in
his
favor.cralaw:red
For his part, the Solicitor
General asserts that the trial court correctly found that the evidence
adduced in the instant case established the culpability of the
appellant
for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies
pointed
out by the appellant are minor matters which do not impair the
integrity
of the prosecution’s evidence, or the credibility of the witnesses who
positively identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.
The Ruling of the
Court
The threshold issue
in this appeal is whether or not the prosecution was able to prove,
through
the collective testimonies of Dominga Pispis and her daughter, that the
appellant was one of those who abducted Igmedio from his house at 1:00
a.m. on December 23, 1986, and killed him shortly thereafter.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In criminal prosecution,
accusation is not synonymous with guilt. It is incumbent on the
prosecution
to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. By
reasonable
doubt is meant that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole
proof
and an inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy
upon
the certainty of guilt. There is a need, therefore, for the most
careful
scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution, both oral and documentary,
independently of whatever defense the accused may offer.[55]
The prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not
on
the evidence of the accused. The weakness of the defense of the accused
does not relieve the prosecution of its responsibility of proving the
guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[56]
In every case, the overriding consideration is not whether the court
doubts
the innocence of the accused, but whether it entertains reasonable
doubt
as to his guilt. Where the pieces of evidence against the accused are
insufficient
or doubtful to determine the guilt of the accused with moral certainty,
he should be acquitted.[57]
Speculations, surmises and probabilities cannot take the place of proof
beyond reasonable doubt.[58]
The prosecution is burdened
to prove beyond reasonable doubt that (a) the crime charged was
committed,
and (b) the identity of the perpetrators of the said crime.[59]
In People v. Esmale,[60]
we held that the first duty of the prosecution is not to present the
crime
but to prove the identity of the criminal. To warrant the conviction of
the accused, the identification of the accused as one of the assailants
must be positive, categorical and consistent, made by a credible
witness
or witnesses.[61]
The identification of the accused as the perpetrator or one of the
perpetrators
of the crime charged is concededly not an easy task.[62]
It has been observed that:
"[T]here are few more
difficult subjects with which the administration of justice has to
deal.
The carelessness or superficiality of observers, the rarity of powers
of
graphic description, and the different force with which peculiarities
of
form or color or expression strike different persons, make recognition
or identification one of the least reliable of facts testified to even
by actual witnesses who have seen the parties in question."[63]
The probative weight
of an in-court identification is largely dependent upon an out-of-court
identification. To resolve the admissibility and probative weight of an
out-of-court identification of suspects, the totality of the following
factors must be considered, viz.:
… (1) the witness’ opportunity
to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’ degree
of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description
given
by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness
at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the
identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification
procedure.[64]
The totality of circumstances
test has been designed precisely to assure fairness as well as
compliance
with the constitutional requirement of due process in regard to
out-of-court
identification and to prevent the contamination of the integrity of an
in-court identification.[65]
A suspect may be positively
identified by his face, physical attributes, voice, mannerisms and body
movements.[66]
In several cases, the Court has ruled that the suspect may be
identified
by the illumination by starlight and by the light of the moon.[67]
Proof of the crime charged
and the identity of the suspect/suspects may consist of direct evidence
and/or circumstantial evidence. It is settled that in the absence of
direct
proof of the commission of the crime, circumstantial evidence could be
the basis of conviction as long as the following requisites concur:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1) There is more than
one circumstance;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) The facts from which
the inferences are derived are proven; and,chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) The combination
of the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable
doubt.cralaw:red
However, to merit approbation,
the circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which
leads
to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the
exclusion
of others, as the perpetrator of the crime.[68]
A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence may be upheld
only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which
leads
to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to
the
exclusion of all others, as the guilty person; the circumstances proved
must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that
the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with any other
hypothesis except that of guilty.[69]
As a corollary to the constitutional precept that the accused is
presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, a conviction based on
circumstantial
evidence must exclude each and every hypothesis consistent with his
innocence.[70]
In the case at bar,
the prosecution proved that Igmedio was abducted by five armed men
wearing
bonnets over their heads at about 1:00 a.m. in front of his house on
December
23, 1986. Even the appellant presented evidence that the perpetrators
were
Pedro Lopez, the Commander of the CHDF, and his men who suspected that
Igmedio was a member of the NPA. The core issue then is whether or not
the appellant was among those men who abducted and killed the victim.cralaw:red
The trial court anchored
the appellant’s conviction on (a) the testimony of Dominga who claimed
to have witnessed the abduction of her husband and recognized the
appellant
when the bonnet made of knitted cloth covering his head was loosened,
thus,
exposing the latter’s face; (b) the testimony of her young daughter
Dolores
who corroborated, in part, her mother’s testimony; and, (c) the
testimony
of Elias Palog and Agustin Alonzo, former volunteer members of the
CHDF,
that the members of the CHDF led by Commander Pedro Lopez abducted and
killed the victim because he was suspected of being a member of the
NPA.
The trial court declared, viz.:
A day before the victim
was killed there was a meeting called by CHDF Commander Pedro Lopez at
his house in Bato because they will take NPAs at Malabuan specially the
victim who was a hukbala-ab. Accused Calica who is a resident of Bato
was
seen by Dominga and Dolores at about 1:00 o’clock in the morning of
December
23, 1986 seated on the carabao sled in their yard armed with a long
firearm.
He even held his long firearm in an aiming position. His bonnet was
loosely
worn leaving his face to the clear view of the two. They are familiar
with
his face because he is a second cousin of the deceased. About one (1)
hour
after accused Calica’s group took the victim, they heard gunbursts. At
daylight, the body of the victim was found in a quarry in Malabuan
riddled
with bullets. Accused Calica and his group were the last persons to be
with the victim before he was shot to death.[71]
We find the identification
of the appellant as one of the abductors and killers of the victim
dubious
and unconvincing. Consequently, we acquit the appellant of the crime
charged.cralaw:red
Dominga testified that
all the armed men who arrived in their house and abducted her husband
wore
bonnets made of knitted cloth over their heads. Each of the bonnets had
holes through which the wearer could see, and over the mouth and nose.[72]
However, in her sworn statement to T/Sgt. Ricarte Marquez of the
Criminal
Investigation Unit, Dominga, with the assistance of her counsel on
January
13, 1986, declared that the appellant wore a black-colored bonnet where
only his face was visible:
15. Q- Aside from a
black-colored uniform wore (sic) by Florencio Calica, what other could
you observed (sic) that he wears on the occasion they took your husband?
A- Also this Florencio
Calica wears black-colored bonnet and only his face was appearing.[73]
Elaborating on the sworn
statement to T/Sgt. Ricarte Marquez, Dominga declared, during the
preliminary
investigation of the charge against the appellant before the municipal
trial court, that she saw the appellant’s face because his bonnet was
loose,
adding that his mouth was "also appearing or somewhat appearing" so
that
she was able to identify the appellant:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q- Now you said in your
affidavit before investigator T/Sgt. Ricarte Marquez that this
Florencio
Calica was wearing a bonnet, is that right?
A- Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q- How did you know
him?
A- Because the bonnet
was loose.cralaw:red
Q- What do you mean
by loose?
A- Since the bonnet
worn by Florencio Calica is (sic) loose instead his face was only
appearing,
his mouth was also appearing or somewhat appearing, so I was able to
identify
him.[74]
Dominga reiterated her
testimony during the preliminary investigation when she testified
during
the trial:
A The bonnet I am referring
to, sir, is like this, it covers the entire head with knitted cloth
that
will cover the entire head and there is a hole in the [e]ye portion
which
is a wide hole and loose.cralaw:red
Q In other words, only
the [e]yes, the nose and the mouth are appearing, Mrs. Pispis?
A It is the face that
is seen.cralaw:red
Q Are you sure of that
Mrs. Pispis?
A Yes, I am very sure.cralaw:red
Q And at that time it
was 2:00 o’clock in the morning?
A When they took my
husband, it was 1:00 o’clock.cralaw:red
Q It was very dark?
A It was moonlight,
full moon.cralaw:red
Q Do you have electricity
in your barangay?
A Our house is in the
farm and it was moonlight, and there was no abstraction (sic).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Is it not that your
house is situated under the rubber trees?
A We live in the hut
and it has no shades.cralaw:red
Q Now, you said, that
one of the persons you saw that took your husband was Florencio Calica,
is that right?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q And Florencio Calica
is a second cousin of your husband?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q And you know Florencio
Calica?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q You do not have misunderstanding
with Florencio Calica?
A None.cralaw:red
Q You did not ask Florencio
Calica at that time why your husband was being taken away?
A No, I did not, sir.[75]
But it is inconceivable
how Dominga could have seen the appellant’s face when only his eyes and
mouth were visible through the bonnet he wore over his head. Even if
the
bonnet of the appellant was "loose," his face could not have been
exposed,
unless he was not wearing it, or it was rolled up and merely covered
his
head. It bears stressing that Dominga’s testimony showed that from the
time the armed men arrived and until they left the victim’s house, the
appellant merely stood by with his knees bended a little, and his
firearm
pointed to the victim and Dominga.[76]
There is no evidence that the appellant changed his position up to the
time that the armed men left with the victim. Neither Dominga nor
Dolores
explained how the bonnet of the appellant became loose while he was
immobile,
thus, revealing his face to them.cralaw:red
Dominga testified that
she was able to identify the appellant because at one point during the
abduction, the latter was only half an arm’s length from her and there
was a full moon. During the trial, however, Dominga was shown pictures
of her husband for identification, and the latter admitted that
although
it was during daytime, she was not sure if the pictures were those of
her
husband because her eyes were defective:
Q. When you were asked
by the Prosecutor for you to identify your husband in the pictures
shown
to you, you said that would not be sure of your husband because your
sight
is blurred, can you remember having answered that?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A. Yes, I stated that.cralaw:red
Q. In other words, your
sight or your eyes has some defects?
A. Yes.[77]
If Dominga could not
identify her husband in broad daylight from the pictures shown to her
because
of her blurred vision, we find it hard to believe that she was able to
recognize the appellant at night with his bonnet on, even if there was
moonlight.cralaw:red
Equally unreliable is
the testimony of Dolores that she saw the face of the appellant because
his bonnet was loosened as she watched from inside their hut, looking
out
from the unfinished portion of the wall, viz.:
PROSECUTOR DE GUZMAN:
Q What happened after
that?
A They brought my father
out.cralaw:red
Q What about you, what
were you doing that time?
A I remained inside.cralaw:red
Q When your neighbor
wake (sic) you up, were you awaken[ed]?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q You said your father
was brought away, were you able to identify who brought your father
away?
A Only one I recognized.cralaw:red
Q How many of them?
A Five of them.cralaw:red
Q You were able to identify
one, how come that you were able to identify one?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Three of us were inside
and I saw that person, my uncle, who has a loosen vonnet (sic).cralaw:red
Q Who is this your uncle
you are referring to that you were able to identify?
A Florencio Calica.cralaw:red
Q If this Florencio
Calica is around, can you pinpoint him?
A Yes, sir. (Witness
points to a person inside the courtroom who, and when asked, he
answered
that he is Florencio Calica, accused herein).cralaw:red
Q You said that the
incident happened early dawn, how were you able to identify Florencio
Calica?
A The moon was bright
that time.cralaw:red
Q By the way, you said
this Florencio Calica was your uncle, how come that he is your uncle?
A He is the second cousin
of my father.cralaw:red
Q You also said a while
ago that he was wearing vonnet (sic), how were you able to identify him?
A The vonnet (sic) covering
his face was loose and I know him because he is my uncle.cralaw:red
…
Q Now your neighbors
woke you up, is that right?
A Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Now, when these neighbors
woke you up, it was only your mother and father who went out, is that
right?
A Yes.cralaw:red
Q Now, you stated a
while ago that the persons or the neighbors who got your father and
mother
wore some vonnets (sic)?
A Only my father was
taken. Yes, there were vonnets (sic).cralaw:red
Q So you did not actually
see who were these neighbors who brought your father?
A I recognized my uncle.cralaw:red
Q But that person whom
you assumed to be your uncle was wearing vonnet (sic)?
A There was, but it
was loose.cralaw:red
Q And the only thing
that you knew was your father was brought out from your house?
A Yes, sir.[78]
No less than the trial
court found the testimony of Dolores incredible. This is so because
Dominga
testified that when Igmedio was abducted, all her children were asleep:
On clarificatory question
by the court, when witness was asked what their children did as a
reaction
on the taking of the armed men of their father, she answered, "They
were
asleep;" that they were not awakened by the commotion.[79]
The appellant is the
second-degree cousin of Igmedio, and the two of them knew each other
very
well. Dominga herself knew the appellant and had met him. If, indeed,
as
claimed by Dominga and Dolores, the appellant was one of Igmedio’s
abductors,
it is hard to believe that the appellant would use a "loose bonnet"
with
his face visible to the victim and his family, as he could be easily
identified
later. Thus, the trial court’s reliance on the testimonies of Agustin
Alonzo,
Elias Palog or even Alfredo Aca who testified for the appellant in
convicting
the appellant is misplaced.cralaw:red
Alonzo testified that
he was a recruit of Pedro Lopez, the Commander of the CHDF, and that at
2:00 a.m. on December 23, 1986, he, Jun Lopez and other members of the
CHDF picked up Igmedio and others who were suspected NPA members. The
victims
were mauled and killed. Alonzo recounted that the faces of the
companions
of the Lopezes were covered:
Q Could you recall where
you were on December 23, 1986 at around 2:00 o’clock in the morning?
A Yes, I can recall.cralaw:red
Q Where were you?
A I was at Bato.cralaw:red
Q Could you recall on
that date and time whether there was a person whom you met?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A There was.cralaw:red
Q Will you please tell
us who was that person?
A I do not know him.cralaw:red
Q I would refresh your
memory, Mr. Agustin Alonzo, aside from being a farmer, do you hold a
position
in your barangay?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q What is your position?
A Volunteer of CHDF.cralaw:red
Q You are a CHDF volunteer
in Brgy. Bato?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q What year was that
when you became a volunteer of Brgy. Bato?
A 1960, sir.cralaw:red
Q But in the year 1986,
are you already a CHDF volunteer?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q Will you please tell
us if (sic) who recruited you as a CHDF volunteer?
A Pedro Lopez, sir.cralaw:red
Q Is this Pedro Lopez
your CHDF Commander?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q Now, I will ask you
whether you could still recall whether you met CHDF Pedro Lopez on
December
23, 1986?
A Yes, we saw each other.cralaw:red
Q Will you please tell
us what time did you meet CHDF Cmdr. Lopez?
A 2:00 o’clock dawn.cralaw:red
Q You are saying that
you met CHDF Cmdr. Pedro Lopez at 2:00 o’clock in the morning of
December
23, 1986?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q What did he tell you,
if there was any, when you met?
A Come with me.cralaw:red
Q Did you ask Cmdr.
Pedro Lopez where you will go?
A I asked.cralaw:red
Q And what was the answer
of CHDF Cmdr. Pedro Lopez?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A We will go to Malabuan.cralaw:red
Q And did you ask what
will you do at Brgy. Malabuan?
A No, I did not ask.cralaw:red
Q Did you go with Cmdr.
Lopez?
A Yes, I went with him.cralaw:red
Q Was [the] CHDF Cmdr.
with companions at that time?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q Will you please tell
us who were his companions, if you could still recall?
A The ones whom I identified
were the two Lopezes.cralaw:red
Q Will you please tell
the name.cralaw:red
A Pedro Lopez, Jun Lopez,
I do not know the others.cralaw:red
Q But aside from Pedro
Lopez and Jun Lopez, there were other companions?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q Around how many of
them?
A Around six persons.cralaw:red
Q Do you know those
six persons?
A I do not know.cralaw:red
Q But you saw their
faces?
A They were covered.cralaw:red
Q Now, you said that
you were instructed by CHDF Cmdr. Pedro Lopez to proceed to Malabuan,
were
you able to reach Brgy. Malabuan?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q And what happened
there at Brgy. Malabuan?
A They picked up people
and (sic) suspected to be NPAs.cralaw:red
Q Do you know those
persons who were picked up?
A I only knew one.cralaw:red
Q And who was that person?
A A certain Pispis.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And after these persons
were picked up, what happened next, if you know?
A Yes, I know.cralaw:red
Q What happened?
A They were mauled and
were taken.cralaw:red
Q After they were mauled
and were taken, what happened?
A They were killed by
persons I cannot identified (sic).cralaw:red
Q After they were taken
away or picked up according to you, around how many minutes that lapsed
before they were killed?
A Around one hour then
I saw that they killed those persons. Those were the only I saw (sic),
then I ran away.cralaw:red
Q And tell us, if you
know, who killed those persons being picked up?
A Jun Lopez and the
other armed men whom I could not identify.[80]
However, Alonzo, likewise,
testified that he could not categorically state whether the appellant
was
among those who were with him, Lopez and the other members of the CHDF
because their faces were covered:
PROSECUTOR DE GUZMAN:
Q Agustin Alon[z]o,
you said you were also a member of the CHDF?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q So, you participated
in knocking at the door of these people and then got them from their
respective
house[s] and brought at a certain house in Malabuan where they were
executed?
A No, I was at a distance
looking at what they were doing which to me was very unbecoming.cralaw:red
Q But you were a CHDF
that time?
A Volunteer.cralaw:red
Q So, you also have
(sic) a gun that evening?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A None, sir.cralaw:red
Q When (sic) Pedro Lopez
told you he was with five or six companions?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q And you cannot identify
anyone of them because all their faces were covered?
A I could not recognize.cralaw:red
Q Since you cannot recognize
them, it is (sic) possible that one of them is Florencio Calica?
A No, because what I
clearly identified were these two Lopezes.cralaw:red
Q Because these two
Lopezes [have] not covered their faces and is it only the six
companions
[who] were covered?
A Yes, I was not able
to recognize the faces which were covered.cralaw:red
Q The incident happened
in 1986?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q And after a period
of six years, you executed an affidavit?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q And then your purpose
in executing an affidavit is to exclude the accused now in this case?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A I have not seen Florencio
Calica.cralaw:red
Q You have not seen
Florencio Calica that time because all the companions of Pedro Lopez
were
all masked?
ATTY. PALMONES:
We object to the questioning,
Your Honor, the witness already answered that the accused Florencio
Calica
was not among those companions.cralaw:red
COURT:
May answer.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A The truth of the matter,
I have not seen Florencio Calica in that group and I just want that
justice
and truth will come out that Florencio Calica was not among the group.cralaw:red
Q And you said a while
ago that you did not go near the group because you were afraid.cralaw:red
COURT:
The witness answered
that he was just afar watching what they were doing.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR DE GUZMAN:
Q But during all this
incident, you were afar watching because you said you did not
participated
(sic)?
A Yes, sir, that is
true.cralaw:red
Q In fact, you ran away
when the shooting was already happening?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q And that is the reason
why there are only two people whom you can identify?
ATTY. PALMONES:
Misleading, Your Honor.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR DE GUZMAN:
The witness already
answered that not among those companions of CHDF Pedro Lopez was the
accused
Florencio Calica.cralaw:red
COURT:
May answer.cralaw:red
A Yes, sir.[81]
Aca testified that on
December 22, 1986, at around past midnight, he was awakened by six
armed
men asking for coffee. But before they left, the armed men asked him
where
the house of Igmedio was. The armed men did not wear bonnets and he
could
identify their faces if he saw them afar:
Q Can you recall where
you were on the eve of December 22, 1986 at more or less 12:00 o’clock
midnight?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q Tell the Court please?
A I was in my house.cralaw:red
Q While you were in
your house in the midnight of December 22, 1986, can you recall of
anything
that happened?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q What was that incident,
if you can still recall?
A There were 6 persons
who awakened me.cralaw:red
Q When you were awakened
by 6 persons, what did you do?
A I rose up.cralaw:red
Q And when you rise
(sic) up, what else did you do?
A I only listened to
them because they were asking coffee.cralaw:red
Q Did you serve them
coffee because you said they were asking coffee?
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q In what particular
portion of your house did you serve coffee?
A In my kitchen.cralaw:red
Q Were these persons
armed?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q What kind of arms
were they bringing with them?
A I do not know, sir,
but it was (sic) long arms.cralaw:red
Q And by the way, if
these persons can be seen again by you, will you be able to identify
their
faces?
A If I can see them,
I can identify their faces.cralaw:red
Q And do you know the
names of these persons?
A No, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q You can only know
them by their faces?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q And after drinking
coffee in your house that evening, what else did the 6 persons do, if
any?
A They went away.cralaw:red
Q And before leaving
your house, did they tell you anything?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q What did they tell
you or ask you?
A They told me to tell
them where the house of Pispis [is].cralaw:red
Q You are referring
to Igmedio Pispis, the deceased?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q Did you accompany
them to the house of Igmedio Pispis?
A No, sir.cralaw:red
Q Why did you not accompany
them to the house of Igmedio Pispis?
A I complained because
my wife had just delivered a baby on December 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q So instead of going
with them to the house of Igmedio Pispis, what did you do?
A I slept.cralaw:red
Q Did you tell them
where the location of the house of Igmedio Pispis [is]?
A I just told them because
the house is near and could be seen.[82]
But Aca testified that
the appellant was not with the six armed men:
Q Now, you said you
know very well Florencio Calica?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q Was Florencio Calica
among the 6 persons that went to your house looking for the house of
Igmedio
Pispis?
A No, sir.cralaw:red
Q Now, do you know what
happened to Igmedio Pispis the following day December 23, 1986?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q What happened to Igmedio
Pispis?
A He died, sir.cralaw:red
Q Do you have any knowledge
who killed Igmedio Pispis?
A I have no knowledge.cralaw:red
Q Now, it seems you
know very well Florencio Calica and Igmedio Pispis. Do you know if
Florencio
Calica knows Igmedio Pispis?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, sir, they knew
each other.cralaw:red
Q Does this Florencio
Calica know the location of Igmedio Pispis?
A Yes, sir, he knows.cralaw:red
That is all for the
witness.[83]
Elias Palog, likewise,
testified that the appellant was not one of those who abducted and
killed
Igmedio.[84]
The People may argue
that, based on the evidence of the prosecution, a strong probability of
the appellant’s guilt was established, a strong suspicion that the
appellant
was one of those who abducted and killed the victim, or, at the very
least
that there is a strong doubt as to the appellant’s innocence. But such
quantum of evidence is not sufficient on which to anchor a judgment of
conviction. Before the appellant can be convicted, the hypothesis of
his
guilt must flow materially from the facts posed and must be consistent
with all of them.[85]
As we acquit the appellant
because of the prosecution’s failure to prove his criminal culpability
for the crime charged, we quote our ruling in People v. Eslaban:[86]
Admittedly, if a life
is taken, justice demands that the wrong be redressed, but this same
justice
that calls for retribution cannot be the same, one that would convict
the
accused-appellant at bar whose guilt has not been proven beyond
reasonable
doubt. The burden of proof rests upon the prosecution and unless the
State
succeeds in proving his guilt, the presumption of innocence in favor of
the accused-appellant applies. The conscience must be satisfied that on
the accused-appellant could be laid the responsibility of the offense
charged.[87]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the appeal of the appellant is GRANTED. The decision of the
trial
court is SET ASIDE AND REVERSED. The appellant is ACQUITTED of the
crime
charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to
immediately
release the appellant from detention unless detained for another cause
or charge, and to submit his compliance with this decision of the Court
within five (5) days from notice hereof.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez,
and Tinga, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Rogelio R. Narisma.
[2]
Records, p. 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Exhibits "A" to "A-3," Id. at 13-16.
[4]
Records, pp. 35-38.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 34.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id. at 44.
[7]
Id. at 45.
[8]
Id. at 52-57.
[9]
Id. at 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id. at 59.
[11]
Id. at 60.
[12]
Id. at 67.
[13]
Id. at 69.
[14]
Id. at 72.
[15]
Id. at 76.
[16]
Id. at 84.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
The prosecution presented Dominga Pispis, Dolores Gonzales, and Lorena
Valdez as witnesses.
[18]
TSN, 13 December 1993, p. 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Exhibit "A-1," Records , p. 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
TSN, 13 December 1993, p. 18.
[21]
Id. at 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Exhibit "A-1," Records, p. 14.
[23]
Exhibits "A-2," Id. at 15.
[24]
Exhibit "A-3," Records, p. 16.
[25]
TSN, 13 December 1993, pp. 20-21.
[26]
Id. at 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
TSN, 3 May 1995, p. 7.
[28]
Id. at 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Id. at 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Exhibit "B," Records, p. 17.
[31]
TSN, 13 December 1993, p. 28.
[32]
TSN, 3 February 1998, pp. 4-6.
[33]
TSN, 1 June 1994, p. 4.
[34]
Id. at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
Id. at 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
TSN, 4 August 1994, p. 4.
[37]
Exhibits "D" to "H," Records, Vol. II, pp. 413-417.
[38]
TSN, 15 December 1993, pp. 6-9.
[39]
Id. at 16-18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
TSN, 28 August 1998, p. 5.
[41]
Id. at 10-11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
Id. at 7-8.
[43]
Id. at 9.
[44]
Id. at 10.
[45]
Id. at 11-12.
[46]
Id. at 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
TSN, 7 September 1998, p. 9.
[48]
Id. at 5-6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
Id. at 7-8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
TSN, 29 October 1998, p. 9.
[51]
Id. at 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[52]
TSN, 3 December 1998, p. 5.
[53]
Rollo, pp. 28-29.
[54]
Id. at 49.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[55]
People v. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59 (1971).
[56]
People v. Crispin, 327 SCRA 167 (2000).
[57]
People v. Gamer, 326 SCRA 660 (2000).
[58]
People v. Contega, 332 SCRA 730 (2000).
[59]
Id. at 741-742.
[60]
243 SCRA 578 (1995).
[61]
Supra at note 57.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[62]
People v. Niño, 290 SCRA 155 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[63]
People v. Beltran, 61 SCRA 246 (1974), citing Estate of Bryant, 176 Pa.
309, 318, 35 Alt. 571, 577.
[64]
People v. Verzosa, 294 SCRA 466 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[65]
People v. Gamer, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[66]
People v. Aquino, 329 SCRA 247 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[67]
People v. Alipayo, 324 SCRA 447 (2000); People v. Gamboa, Jr., 145 SCRA
289 (1986); People v. Pueblas, 127 SCRA 746 (1984); People v. Vacal, 27
SCRA 24 (1969).
[68]
People v. Alma Bisda y Gaupo, et al., G.R. No. 140895, July 17, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[69]
People v. Quitorio, 285 SCRA 196 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[70]
People v. Xip Wai Ming, 264 SCRA 224 (1996).
[71]
Rollo, p. 28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[72]
TSN, 13 December 1993, p. 18.
[73]
Records, p. 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[74]
Id. at 8-9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[75]
TSN, 13 December 1993, pp. 18-19.
[76]
Id. at 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[77]
TSN, 13 December 1993, p. 14.
[78]
TSN, 3 May 1995, pp. 4-8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[79]
Records, p. 212.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[80]
TSN, 15 December 1993, pp. 6-10.
[81]
Id. at 13-15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[82]
TSN, 29 October 1998, pp. 5-8.
[83]
Id. at 8-9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[84]
Rollo, p. 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[85]
23 Corpus Juris Secundum 850.
[86]
218 SCRA 534 (1993).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[87]
Id. at 544.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |