SECOND DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
139412
April 2, 2003
-versus-
JAIME CASTILLANO,
SR. ALIAS "TALINO,"
RONALD CASTILLANO
ALIAS "NONO"AND
JAIME
CASTILLANO,
JR. ALIAS "JUNJUN,"
Accused,
RONALD CASTILLANO
ALIAS "NONO"AND
JAIME
CASTILLANO,
JR. ALIAS "JUNJUN,"
Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR.,
J.
:
This is an appeal from
the Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 31, in
Criminal
Case No. P-2542, convicting appellants Ronald Castillano alias "Nono"
and
Jaime Castillano, Jr. of murder, meting on each of them the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay, jointly and severally,
damages
to the heirs of the victim Diosdado Volante.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Evidence or the
Prosecution
Diosdado Volante, who
eked out a living as a farmer, his wife Luz,[2]
and their four children lived in their farmland located in the outskirt
of Sitio Danawan, Barangay Sagrada, Bula, Camarines Sur.cralaw:red
About 200 meters away
from Diosdado’s farmland was the farmhouse of Jaime Castillano, Sr.[3]
He tasked his son, Jaime Castillano, Jr., to take care of the farmhouse
and allowed him to reside there.[4]
Jaime, Sr., his wife Concepcion, their son Ronald (Nono) Castillano and
other children lived at their family residence in Sagrada, Bula,
Camarines
Sur, approximately three kilometers away from their farmhouse in Sitio
Danawan.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sometime in the early
part of June 1996,[6]
Jaime, Sr. fired his gun indiscriminately. Afraid that a stray bullet
might
hit any member of his family, Diosdado accosted Jaime, Sr. and asked
him
to desist from firing his gun indiscriminately. Jaime, Sr. resented the
intrusion. He remonstrated that neighbors did not even complain about
him
firing his gun. A heated altercation ensued. Jaime, Sr. then fired his
gun towards the house of Diosdado. The incident germinated deep
animosity
between the two and their respective families.[7]
Jaime, Sr. always carried a bolo whenever he passed by the house of
Diosdado.cralaw:red
On July 8, 1996, between
5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Levy Avila, a teacher, was in his house doing
some
repairs. He noticed Jaime, Jr. and Ronald talking by the roadside near
the gate of his (Levy’s) house. Levy overheard the two planning to go
to
Diosdado’s house. Jaime, Jr. and Ronald even told Levy: "Ayaw namin
kasing
inaasar." Suspecting that the two were intending to harm Diosdado, Levy
urged them to amicably settle their differences with Diosdado.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At around 8:00 p.m.,
Luz and Diosdado were about to retire for the night. Their children
were
already fast asleep. Diosdado was tired after a day’s work of spraying
chemicals at the rice field. He reclined on a bamboo bench near the
main
door of their house. A kerosene lamp lighted the house. Suddenly, Luz
heard
voices near their house. She saw Jaime, Sr. holding a flashlight and
his
two sons, Jaime Jr. and Ronald, on their way to the house. Luz
immediately
alerted her husband and told him that the Castillanos were in their
yard.
However, Diosdado was nonchalant and simply told Luz not to mind them.
All of a sudden, Jaime, Sr. fired his gun at Diosdado’s house.
Terrified,
Luz hastily carried her baby daughter Mary Jane, sought cover and hid
near
the rear door. She was about five meters away from her husband when the
Castillanos barged inside their house and ganged up on Diosdado. Jaime,
Jr. and Ronald, armed with bladed weapons, took turns in stabbing
Diosdado.
Ronald stabbed Diosdado on the right side of his breast, right thigh
and
on the back. He also struck him with a one-meter long pipe. Not
satisfied,
Jaime, Sr. fired his gun hitting the right thigh of Diosdado. Luz was
so
shocked by the sudden turn of events. To silence her one year old baby,
she breastfed her. As soon as she could, Luz fled to the rice paddies
where
she hid for a time. The Castillanos fled on board a jeep parked in the
NIA road about 200 meters from the house of Diosdado. When Luz returned
to their house, she saw her husband sprawled on the ground in a pool of
his own blood. Diosdado, at the point of death, asked her for help. Not
knowing what to do, Luz lost no time and ran to the house of their
neighbor
Celedonio Espiritu for help. Celedonio rushed to the Bula Police
Station
and reported the incident.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A team composed of SPO4
Jaime Javier, SPO3 Jaime Bellano and SPO3 Nilo Fornillos,[8]
the duty investigator,[9]
went to the crime scene[10]
to conduct an on-the-spot investigation. Photographs were taken of the
cadaver.[11]
SPO3 Fornillo drew rough sketch[12]
of the scene. The policemen saw a bolo at the place where Diosdado was
sprawled near the door of their house. A scabbard of a bolo was found a
meter away from the house of Diosdado.[13]
The policemen also found a bullet hole on the wall of the house.[14]
Thereafter, the cadaver was placed on a hamak [hammock] brought to the
police station. The police investigators turned over the scabbard and
bolo
to the desk officer of the police station.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
From the police station,
SPO4 Javier, SPO3 Bellano and Sgt. Rogelio Palacio boarded their mobile
police car and set out a manhunt for the malefactors. They proceeded
towards
the boundary in Sto. Domingo where they put up a checkpoint. The police
officers inspected every vehicle that passed by. At around 12:45 a.m.,
SPO4 Javier halted a passenger jeepney. On board were Jaime, Sr. and
his
two sons, Jaime Jr. and Ronald, each of whom carried a bag containing
their
clothes. The policemen brought the Castillanos to the police station.[16]
The bags of Jaime, Jr. and Ronald were turned over to the police
investigators.
The three were placed under arrest for the killing of Diosdado. The
policemen
submitted their investigation report.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the meantime, at
7:00 a.m., Dr. Evangeline Consolacion, the Municipal Health Officer of
Bula, conducted an autopsy on the cadaver of Diosdado. Her autopsy
report
revealed the following findings:
External Findings
1.
Incise Wound 3 cm Superior pinna R ear
2.
Incise woud (sic) 10 cm. from nasal bridge extending to mandible R
3.
Stab wound 2 cm.x 5 cm. Epigastrium R
4.
Stab wound 2 cm.x 4 cm. Epigastrium L
5.
Stab wound 2.5 cm. Middle third Arm R
6.
Stab wound 2cm x 5 cm. posterior Back.cralaw:red
7.
Amputating middle third finger L
8.
Hacked wound posterior ankle L
9.
Gunshot wound POE 2 x 2cm. with contusion collar medial aspect middle
third
R thigh
No point of exit noted
Internal Findings:
Fracture femur with
Foreign body bullet lodge in middle third femur with hematoma about
about
100 cc R thigh
Cause of Death; Hypovolemia
secondary to Multiple Stab Wound[18]
The doctor recovered
a slug from the right thigh of Diosdado. She later signed the victim’s
post-mortem certificate of death.[19]
Senior Inspector Edgardo B. Sambo, Chief of Police of Bula Police
Station,
filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Bula, Camarines Sur, a criminal
complaint[20]
for murder against the Castillano brothers.[21]
Judge Francisco O. Tolentino conducted the preliminary examination and
thereafter issued an order of arrest against the Castillanos.[22]
No bail was recommended for their provisional release. On July 9, 1996,
Luz gave a sworn statement to the police investigators.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On July 10, 1996, the
accused were transferred to the Tinangis Penal Farm. Senior Inspector
Sambo
requested the PNP-CLRU5 Provincial Unit to conduct a paraffin test on
the
Castillanos.[24]
On July 12, 1997, Major
Lorlie Arroyo, the Head Forensic Chemist of PNP-Region 5, conducted the
paraffin test on the Castillanos. Ronald was found positive for
gunpowder
residue.[25]
Jaime, Sr. and Jaime, Jr. were found negative for gunpowder residue.cralaw:red
The MTC issued a subpoena
requiring the accused to submit their counter-affidavits from notice
thereof.
However, the accused failed to submit any counter-affidavit.[26]
On August 2, 1996, an
Information for murder was filed against Jaime, Sr., Ronald and Jaime
Jr.
with the Regional Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 31. The
accusatory
portion of the Information reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about the
8th day of July 1996 at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening at Barangay
Sagrada,
Municipality of Bula, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and
within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another with intent to kill with
treachery and evident premeditation armed with a handgun, bladed weapon
and piece of wood did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously
attack, assault and shot and stab one DIOSDADO VOLANTE y LOZANO
inflicting
upon the latter several mortal wounds on the different parts of his
body
which caused his instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of
the
heirs of said Diosdado Volante the amount of which to be proven in
Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[27]
Upon their arraignment[28]
on August 29, 1996, accused Jaime Sr., Jaime, Jr and Ronald, duly
assisted
by counsel de parte, Atty. Avelino Sales Jr., pleaded not guilty to the
offense charged. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Luz testified that when
Diosdado was still alive, he had an annual income of over P65,000. She
spent P18,000 for the funeral services,[29]
P300 for religious services,[30]
P9,111 for food and other expenses[31]
during her husband’s wake and funeral. She suffered sleepless nights
and
mental anguish for his sudden death.cralaw:red
The Defenses and Evidence
of the Accused
Ronald admitted when
he testified that he killed Diosdado but insisted that he did so in
self-defense
and in defense of his brother Jaime, Jr. He asserted that his father
Jaime,
Sr. and brother Jaime, Jr. had nothing to do with Diosdado’s death.
Ronald
alleged that on September 8, 1996, at about 7:30 p.m., he was driving a
passenger jeepney on his way to the poblacion of Bula. Jaime, Jr.
flagged
down the jeepney. He boarded the jeepney and told Ronald that he was
instructed
by their mother to go to the house of Jose del Socorro to ask the
latter
to accompany them to their farmhouse in order to fetch Gilda Albes.
Ronald
was armed with a .38 paltik gun, while Jaime, Jr. was armed with a bolo
sheathed in a scabbard. They fetched Jose and then Ronald parked the
jeepney
at the NIA road. Jaime, Jr., who was holding a flashlight, walked along
the footpath on top of a pilapil (a narrow earthen barrier between two
rice fields). Ronald and Jose walked behind Jaime, Jr. As they passed
by
the house of Diosdado, a man suddenly shouted: "you shit, I have await
(sic) for you for a while, why just now." Surprised, Jaime, Jr.
forthwith
focused his flashlight towards the man who shouted. He was aghast when
he saw Diosdado armed with a bolo running towards them and about to
attack
them with his bolo. Ronald shoved Jaime, Jr. who fell on the muddy rice
paddies below the pilapil. Ronald forthwith shot Diosdado.
Diosdado
took a step but fell on a kneeling position. Diosdado brandished his
bolo.
Ronald shot Diosdado once more but his gun misfired. To defend himself,
Ronald took Jaime, Jr.’s bolo and hacked Diosdado to death.[32]
Ronald then fled from the scene and ran to the jeepney at the NIA road.
Jaime, Jr. and Jose boarded the jeep and left the scene. Ronald threw
the
bolo along the way. He threw his gun into a rice farm in Danawan.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Jaime, Jr. corroborated
the testimony of his brother. He, however, testified that he did not
see
his brother hack and kill Diosdado. He claimed that when Ronald got
hold
of his bolo, he ran away and proceeded to their jeepney which was then
parked at the roadside. Minutes later, Ronald followed. They then
hastily
went home to Sagrada and told their father Jaime, Sr. of the incident.[33]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Jose Del Socorro corroborated
the testimony of Ronald. He testified that on July 8, 1996, at about
5:00
p.m. he was on his way home when he met Diosdado whom he noticed to be
inebriated and unruly Diosdado was throwing dried mud at the farmhouse
of the Castillanos and challenging the occupants of the farmhouse to a
fight. He advised Diosdado to stop what he was doing and warned him
that
he was only inviting trouble. Diosdado told him to mind his own
business
and not to intervene. Jose thereafter left Diosdado and went, home.[34]
When Jose arrived home, Dominador Briña was waiting for him. He
and Dominador talked business for a while and subsequently had dinner.
After some time, Jaime, Jr. and Ronald arrived at Jose’s house.cralaw:red
Concepcion Castillano
testified that on July 8, 1996 at around 5:00 a.m., her son Jaime, Jr.
arrived home and told her that Diosdado threw stones at their farmhouse
and challenged everybody to a fight. She felt nervous and reported the
incident to the police and caused the same to be entered in the police
blotter.[35]
Thereafter, she went home and told her sons Jaime, Jr. and Ronald to
immediately
fetch Gilda. She, likewise, instructed her sons to first drop by the
house
of Jose so that the latter could accompany them to the farmhouse.cralaw:red
Jaime, Sr. vehemently
denied any participation in the killing of Diosdado. He claimed that at
the time of the alleged incident, he was at their house in Sagrada,
bedridden
due to his debilitating diabetes. He narrated to the trial court his
medical
history and his confinement at the Mandaluyong Medical Center sometime
in 1994.[36]
He presented documents and receipts showing that he had been and is
still
under medication.[37]
He declared that upon learning from his son Ronald that the latter
killed
Diosdado, he advised his sons to look for a lawyer for legal
representation.
He told the trial court that at around 11:30 p.m., he and his two sons
had decided to go to Andangnan in order to meet a cousin of his who
knew
of a lawyer named Atty. Rotor. As they traversed the road to Andangan,
they were stopped by some policemen at a checkpoint and were invited to
the police station where they were investigated and eventually
incarcerated.[38]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Gilda Abes, the last
witness for the defense, affirmed that she was the girlfriend of Jaime,
Jr. She told the trial court that on July 8, 1996 she was at the
farmhouse
of the Castillanos. She corroborated the testimony of Jose that
Diosdado
was combative and drunk. According to Gilda, Jaime, Jr. left the
farmhouse
before sundown to go to his parent’s place at Sagrada. Jaime, Jr. never
returned to the farmhouse that night. Gilda learned of the incident the
next morning when she went home.[39]
The Verdict of the Trial
Court
On December 22, 1998,
the trial court rendered a decision convicting Jaime, Jr. and Ronald of
murder qualified by evident premeditation and treachery. The trial
court
exonerated Jaime, Sr. of the crime on reasonable doubt. The trial court
gave no credence to Ronald’s claim that he acted in self-defense. The
decretal
portion of the decision reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view of
all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered, finding the two (2)
accused
RONALD CASTILLANO and JAIME CASTILLANO, JR. guilty beyond reasonable
doubt
of the offense of MURDER and they are hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty
of imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties
imposed thereby. Further, as civil liability, the said two (2) accused
are hereby ordered to pay the legal heirs of the late Diosdado L.
Volante,
through his widow Luz R. Volante, the total sum of ONE HUNDRED
SEVENTY-SEVEN
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY ONE PESOS (P177,421.00) Philippine
Currency
as actual and moral damages including death indemnity, with costs
against
both accused.cralaw:red
The accused Jaime Castillano,
Sr. is hereby acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[40]
The accused, now appellants,
interposed their appeal from the decision of the trial court contending
that it committed reversible errors:
(a) in rejecting appellant
Ronald’s plea of self-defense; and (b) in not acquitting appellant
Jaime,
Jr. of the crime charged for failure of the prosecution to prove his
guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.cralaw:red
Anent the first issue,
appellant Ronald posits that he adduced proof that he acted in
self-defense
when he stabbed the victim.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court disagrees
with appellant Ronald. The Court has consistently held that like alibi,
self-defense is inherently weak because it is easy to fabricate.[41]
In a case where self-defense and defense of relatives is invoked by the
accused, the burden of evidence is shifted to him to prove with clear
and
convincing evidence the essential requisites of self-defense, namely
(a)
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity
of the means employed to repel or prevent it; and (c) lack of
sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself. There can be
no
complete or incomplete self-defense or defense of relatives unless the
accused proves unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.[42]
The accused must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the
weakness
of the evidence of the prosecution for by pleading self-defense, the
accused
thereby admits having killed the victim and he can no longer be
exonerated
of the crime charged if he fails to prove the confluence of the
essential
requisites for self-defense and defense of a relative.[43]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Ronald failed
to discharge his burden.cralaw:red
First. After shooting
and stabbing Diosdado, appellant Ronald fled from the situs criminis.
Flight
from the situs of the crime is a veritable badge of guilt and negates
his
plea of self-defense.[44]
Second. Appellant Ronald
threw away his paltik .38 gun and the bolo he used in hacking Diosdado
as he fled from the scene of the crime instead of surrendering the same
to the police authorities. Appellant Ronald admitted that he had no
license
for the gun:
Q
Where is that gun now that you use?
A
I do not know, Your Honor, I think I was able to throw it away.cralaw:red
Q
Where?
A
At Danawan, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Q
Danawan, is that a lake?
A
No, Your Honor, it is a ricefarm.cralaw:red
Q
What kind of gun is this?
A
Paltik .38, Your Honor.[45]
ATTY. BALLEBAR:
Q
By the way, where is that bolo that you used in hacking and stabbing
Diosdado
Volante?
A
I do not know anymore because I was able to throw it away also when I
ran
away.cralaw:red
q
Where is that place where you throw it?
a
It was by the NIA road.cralaw:red
q
You mentioned also a while ago that this gun that you said is a
"paltik"
and you throw it away also, is it not?
a
Yes, Ma’am.cralaw:red
q
And that gun had been in your possession the whole day that you are
driving
up to the time you shot the victim, Diosdado Volante?
a
Yes, Ma’am.cralaw:red
q
Do you have license to possess that firearm?
a
None, Ma’am.[46]
The failure of appellant
Ronald to surrender the bolo and his gun to the police authorities
belies
his claim of self-defense.cralaw:red
Third. Appellant Ronald
failed to report the incident to the police authorities even when they
arrested him. Curiously, he failed to inform the police officers who
arrested
him that he acted in self-defense when he shot and stabbed the victim
The
resounding silence of the appellant is another indicium of the
incredibility
of his defense.[47]
Moreover, the records show that the municipal trial court issued a
subpoena
on July 9, 1996 requiring appellant Ronald to submit his
counter-affidavit
but he refused and/or failed to submit the same despite service on him
of the subpoena. It was only during the trial that appellant Ronald,
for
the first time, invoked self-defense and defense of a relative.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fourth. The cadaver
of the victim was found inside his house when the police investigators
arrived.[48]
This belies appellant Ronald’s claim that he shot the victim in the
rice
paddies, near his house and that he (appellant Ronald) took the bolo of
appellant Jaime, Jr. and used it to stab the victim. Appellant Ronald
failed
to prove his claim that when the police investigators arrived in the
victim’s
house, they carried his (the victim’s) body from the rice paddies to
the
house. The only evidence adduced by appellant Ronald was his testimony
which is hearsay, and besides being hearsay, it is speculative and mere
conjecture.cralaw:red
Fifth. Appellant Ronald
hacked the victim no less than five times. Two of the stab wounds
sustained
by the victim were at his back and posterior portion of his left ankle.
The number and nature of the wounds of the victim negate the
appellant’s
claim that he shot the victim in self-defense. On the contrary, they
prove
that appellant Ronald was determined to kill the victim.[49]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Jaime, Jr.
avers that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged. He asserts that the testimony of Luz
Volante,
the widow of Diosdado, was inconsistent with her testimony during the
preliminary
examination in the municipal trial court and her sworn statement before
the police investigators as well as the testimonies of SPO1 Fornillos
and
SPO4 Jaime Favier, and the physical evidence on record. The appellant
catalogued
said inconsistencies, thus:
1. He was lying
on the bench inside just upon entering. (Tsn p. 9, 2/17/97).cralaw:red
I
was lying down with my husband inside our house but we were still awake
(9th Answer, Prel. Exam. MTC, 7/9/96).cralaw:red
2. JCS fired towards
our house hitting the wall (Tsn p. 11, 2/17/96).cralaw:red
JCS
fired twice (16th answer, Prel. Exam. MTC, 7/9/96).cralaw:red
JCS
kept on firing the gun pointing towards the body of my husband (9th
Answer,
Sworn Statement, PNP, 7/9/96).cralaw:red
JCS
shot my husband three (3) times (Tsn p. 16, 2/17/97)
3. My husband
was shot and hit on the right thigh (Tsn p. 14, 2/17/97). He was hit on
the left lap (23rd Answer, Prel. Exam. MTC, 7/9/96). He was hit on his
side (Tsn p. 43, 2/17/97).cralaw:red
4. RC struck my
husband with a 1-meter long Pipe (Tsn p. 13, 2/17/97). RC & JCJ
smashed
my husband with a hard object (5th Answer, Sworn Statement, 7/9/96).cralaw:red
RC
smashed my husband (22nd Answer, Prel. Exam. MTC, 7/9/96).cralaw:red
5. He was not
able to fight back (Tsn p. 43, 2/17/97). He was standing and was trying
to parry the attack of the accused (26th Answer, Prel. Exam. 7/9/96).cralaw:red
6. When I went
back to the house, he was still alive (Tsn p. 19, 2/17/97). - LV "Yes,"
the victim could have died instantly (Tsn p. 35, 2/3/97) With wounds
sustained,
he could have died instantly (p. 8, Complainant’s Memorandum).cralaw:red
7.
It was bright inside our house with a kerosene and a bottle lamp (Tsn
pp.
33-34, 2/17/97). Only one kerosene lamp - bottle of gin with wick and
light
(Tsn p. 10, 4/1/97 - SPO1 Pornillos
Surrounding
house, dark, total darkness (Tsn pp. 12-13, 4/1/97).cralaw:red
8.
Scene Photography by Jaime Jornales (Tsn, p. 21, 2/17/97).cralaw:red
-do-
by Mr. Lozano (Tsn., p. 12, 3/7/97).cralaw:red
9.
SPO1 Nilo Pornillos learned of the incident at 8:00 o’clock of July 8,
1996 (page 5 of Complainant’s Memorandum.cralaw:red
SPO4
Jaime Javier received report at 9:00 o’clock P.M. of July 8, 1996 of
Complainant’s
Memorandum.cralaw:red
SPO4
Jaime Javier received report at 8:00 P.M. (page 7 of Complainant’s
Memorandum).[50]
On the other hand, the
Office of the Solicitor General asserts that the credibility of the
testimony
of Luz, the prosecution’s principal witness, cannot be impeached via
her
testimony during the preliminary examination before the municipal trial
court nor by her sworn statement given to the police investigators for
the reason that the transcripts and sworn statement were neither marked
and offered in evidence by the appellants nor admitted in evidence by
the
trial court. Moreover, the appellants did not confront Luz with her
testimony
during the preliminary examination and her sworn statement to the
police
investigators. Luz was not, therefore, accorded a chance to explain the
purported inconsistencies, as mandated by Section 13, Rule 132 of the
Revised
Rules of Evidence which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
How witness is impeached
by evidence of inconsistent statement. - Before a witness can be
impeached
by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent
with
his present testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the
circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he
must
be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain
them. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness
before any question is put to him concerning them.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court agrees with
the Office of the Solicitor General. Before the credibility of a
witness
and the truthfulness of his testimony can be impeached by evidence
consisting
of his prior statements which are inconsistent with his present
testimony,
the cross-examiner must lay the predicate or the foundation for
impeachment
and thereby prevent an injustice to the witness being cross-examined.
The
witness must be given a chance to recollect and to explain the apparent
inconsistency between his two statements and state the circumstances
under
which they were made.[51]
This Court held in People v. Escosura[52]
that the statements of a witness prior to her present testimony cannot
serve as basis for impeaching her credibility unless her attention was
directed to the inconsistencies or discrepancies and she was given an
opportunity
to explain said inconsistencies. In a case where the cross-examiner
tries
to impeach the credibility and truthfulness of a witness via her
testimony
during a preliminary examination, this Court outlined the procedure in
United States vs. Baluyot,[53]
thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For instance, if the
attorney for the accused had information that a certain witness, say
Pedro
Gonzales, had made and signed a sworn statement before the fiscal
materially
different from that given in his testimony before the court, it was
incumbent
upon the attorney when cross-examining said witness to direct his
attention
to the discrepancy and to ask him if he did not make such and such
statement
before the fiscal or if he did not there make a statement different
from
that delivered in court. If the witness admits the making of such
contradictory
statement, the accused has the benefit of the admission, while the
witness
has the opportunity to explain the discrepancy, if he can. On the other
hand, if the witness denies making any such contradictory statement,
the
accused has the right to prove that the witness did make such
statement;
and if the fiscal should refuse upon due notice to produce the
document,
secondary evidence of the contents thereof would be admissible. This
process
of cross-examining a witness upon the point of prior contradictory
statements
is called in the practice of the American courts "laying a predicate"
for
the introduction of contradictory statements. It is almost universally
accepted that unless a ground is thus laid upon cross-examination,
evidence
of contradictory statements are not admissible to impeach a witness;
though
undoubtedly the matter is to a large extent in the discretion of the
court.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, the
appellants
never confronted Luz with her testimony during the preliminary
examination
and her sworn statement. She was not afforded any chance to explain any
discrepancies between her present testimony and her testimony during
the
preliminary examination and her sworn statement. The appellants did not
even mark and offer in evidence the said transcript and sworn statement
for the specific purpose of impeaching her credibility and her present
testimony. Unless so marked and offered in evidence and accepted by the
trial court, said transcript and sworn statement cannot be considered
by
the court.[54]
On the purported inconsistencies
or discrepancies catalogued by the appellants relating to the testimony
of Luz during the preliminary examination and her sworn statement, the
Office of the Solicitor General posits that:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sixth, Volante indeed
testified that when she returned to their house from the ricefield,
after
the three accused had left the premises, her husband was still alive
(TSN,
February 17, 1997, p. 19) as he was still able to ask for her
assistance
(Ibid, p. 20). But it is not inconsistent with the expert opinion of
Dr.
Consolacion that by the nature of the wounds sustained by the victim,
the
latter could have died thereof instantaneously (TSN, February 3, 1997,
p. 35). It is clear that the said physician was merely stating a
possibility
and not what happened in the instant case because in the first place,
she
was not present at the scene right after the incident.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Seventh, Volante was
insistent in her testimony that at the time of the commission of the
subject
crime, it was bright inside their house because they had a "kerosene
lamp"
and a "bottle lamp" both lighted up, one placed on the wall and the
other
on the ceiling (Ibid, pp. 33, 52-53). While it may appear contradictory
to SPO1 Pornillos’ testimony that there was only a kerosene lamp at the
time, he could not have been expected to notice all the things found
inside
the house, including the "bottle lamp", because he might not have been
familiar with its interiors. Or, he could have focused his attention
primarily
on the body of the fallen victim and the objects that may be used later
as evidence against the perpetrators of the crime.cralaw:red
Eight, it is admitted
that the testimonies of Volante and SPO1 Pornillos as to who took
pictures
of the crime scene including the lifeless body of the victim are
contradictory.
But again, such contradiction, being only minor and irrelevant, does
not
affect the credibility of their testimonies.cralaw:red
And ninth, the apparently
inconsistent statements of the prosecution witnesses (SPO1 Pornillos
and
SPO4 Javier) as to the exact time the subject incident was reported to
the police authorities are similarly irrelevant to the matters in
issue.
Of consequence here is the fact that on the night the crime was
committed,
it was reported to the authorities who later effected the arrest of the
perpetrators thereof.[55]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court fully agrees
with the foregoing ruminations of the Office of the Solicitor General.
The inconsistencies adverted to by the appellants pertained only to
minor
and collateral matters and not to the elements of the crime charged;
hence,
they do not dilute the probative weight of the testimony. It bears
stressing
that even the most truthful witness can make mistakes but such innocent
lapses do not necessarily affect his credibility. The testimonies of
witnesses
must be considered and calibrated in their entirety and not by their
truncated
portions or isolated passages.[56]
And then again, minor contradictions among several witnesses of a
particular
incident and aspect thereof which do not relate to the gravamen of the
crime charged are to be expected in view of their differences in
impressions,
memory, vantage points and other related factors.[57]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to appellant
Jaime, Jr.’s claim, the prosecution adduced proof that he and appellant
Ronald conspired to kill and did kill Diosdado by their simultaneous
acts
of stabbing the victim. As narrated by Luz:
ATTY. BALLEBAR:
Q
Now after Jaime Castillano Sr. fired at your house, what happened next
if any?
A
They entered our house.cralaw:red
Q
Now, when you say they to whom are you referring to?
A
Jaime Castillano Sr., Jaime Castillano, Jr., and Ronald Castillano.cralaw:red
Q
Now, where did they enter?
A
In the other door.cralaw:red
Q
Now at the time they entered your house was the door of your house
closed
or opened?
A
It was closed.cralaw:red
Q
Now, after the accused entered your house what happened next, if any?
A
Jaime Castillano Jr. stabbed my husband and also Ronal Castillano
stabbed
my husband.cralaw:red
Q
Now, was your husband hit by the stabbing of Ronald Castillano, Jr.
(sic)?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Will you tell us on what part of his body was he hit?
A
My husband was still struck by Ronald Castillano hitting him on his
right
side of his body including on his right thigh and also on his back
ATTY. BALLEBAR:
Q
Now, you said Ronald Castillano struck your husband, now with what
instrument
did he use in strucking (sic) your husband?
ATTY. BERNALES:
We object, misleading,
your Honor.cralaw:red
COURT:
Witness may answer.cralaw:red
WITNESS:
A
A pipe.cralaw:red
ATTY. BALLEBAR:
Q
Now, will you tell us more or less how long was that pipe that was used
by Ronald Castillano?
A
About one (1) meter, Maam.[58]
Luz was merely five
meters away from where Diosado was attacked and stabbed by the
appellants.
Appellant Jaime, Jr. even tried to cut the ankle of the victim:
ATTY. BALLEBAR:
Q
Now during this incident, how far were you from the accused and your
husband?
A
From where I am sitting up to that window which is about five (5)
meters.cralaw:red
Q
Now after the accused strucked (sic) and shot your husband, what else
happened
if any?
A
Jaime Castillano Jr. stabbed my husband on his breast (Witness is
pointing
to her breast).cralaw:red
ATTY. BERNALES:
We will move that the
answer be striken off from the records because it is not responsive to
the question. The question is after your husband has been stabbed
strucked
(sic) and shot.cralaw:red
COURT:
Q
Your are being asked what happened after the accused was already
stabbed,
strucked (sic) and shot, what happened next?
WITNESS:
Q
Jaime Castillano Junior still stabbed my husband and try to cut his
ankle,
Your Honor.cralaw:red
COURT:
Strike our (sic) the
previous answer of the witness.cralaw:red
ATTY. BALLEBAR:
Q
By the way, will you tell us how many times did Ronald Castillano stab
your husband?
A
I cannot determine how many times he even stabbed my husband on his
left
eye.cralaw:red
Q
How about Jaime Castillano Jr., how many times did he stab your husband?
A
I cannot determine exactly how many times but he repeatedly stabbed my
husband.[59]
The mere denial appellant
Jaime, Jr. of the crime charged is but a negative self-serving which
cannot
prevail over the positive and straightforward testimony of Luz and the
physical evidence on record.[60]
The Crime Committed
by Appellants
The trial court correctly
convicted the appellants of murder, qualified by treachery, under
Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court, however, does not agree with
the trial court’s finding that evident premeditation attended the
commission
of the crime.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Case law has it that
the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt
qualifying
circumstances in the commission of the crime. For evident
premeditation
to qualify a crime, the prosecution must prove the confluence of the
essential
requites thereof: (a) the time when the offender has determined to
commit
the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender has clung
to his determination; (c) an interval of time between the determination
and the execution of the crime enough to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.[61]
There must be proof beyond cavil when and how the offender planned to
kill
the victim and that sufficient time had elapsed between the time he had
decided to kill the victim and the actual killing of the victim, and
that
in the interim, the offender performed overt acts positively and
conclusively
showing his determination to commit the said crime.[62]
In this case, the only evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove
evident
premeditation is the testimony of Levy Avila that between 5:00 p.m. and
6:00 p.m. on July 8, 1996, he heard the appellants planning to go to
the
house of Diosdado and that he heard them say: "Ayaw namin kasing
inaasar,"
and that at 8:00 p.m., the appellants arrived in the house of the
victim
and stabbed him to death. There is no evidence of any overt acts of the
appellants when they decided to kill Diosdado and how they would
consummate
the crime. There is no evidence of any overt acts perpetrated by the
appellants
between 5:00 and 8:00 p.m. that they clung to their determination to
kill
Diosdado.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There is treachery in
the commission of a crime when (a) at the time of attack, the victim
was
not in a position to defend himself; (b) the offender consciously and
deliberately
adopted the particular means, methods and forms of attack employed by
him.[63]
Even a frontal attack may be treacherous when unexpected on an unarmed
victim who would not be in a position to repel the attack or avoid it.[64]
In this case, the victim was unarmed and was supinely resting before
sleeping
after a hard day’s work. Although Luz warned the victim that the
appellants
were already approaching their house, however, the victim remained
unperturbed
when the appellants barged into the victim’s house. They stabbed him
repeatedly
with diverse deadly weapons. The victim had nary a chance to defend
himself
and avoid the fatal thrusts of the appellants.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The crime was committed
in the house of the victim. There was no provocation on the part of the
victim. Dwelling thus aggravated the crime. However, dwelling was not
alleged
in the information, as mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules
of Criminal Procedure:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 8. Designation
of the offense. - The complaint or information shall state the
designation
of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions
constituting
the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances.
If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to
the
section or subsection of the statute punishing it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The use by appellant
Ronald of an unlicensed firearm to shoot Diosdado on the thigh is not
an
aggravating circumstance because (1) there is no allegation in the
information
that said appellant had no license to possess the firearm. That
appellant
lacked the license to possess the firearm is an essential element of
the
crime and must be alleged in the information.[65]
Although the crime was committed before the new rule took effect on
December
1, 2002, the rule should, however, be applied retroactively as it is
favorable
to the appellants.[66]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellants are not
entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The
evidence
shows that the appellants were arrested when the police officers
manning
the checkpoint stopped the passenger jeepney driven by appellant Ronald
and arrested the appellants. The fact that the appellants did not
resist
but went peacefully with the peace officers does not mean that they
surrendered
voluntarily.[67]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There being no mitigating
and aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime, the
appellants
should be meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua conformably with
Article
63 of the Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Civil Liabilities
of the Appellants
The trial court awarded
the total amount of P177,421 as civil indemnity, actual and moral
damages
in favor of the heirs of the victim Diosdado. The Court has to modify
the
awards.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellants Ronald and
Jaime, Jr. are obliged to pay jointly and severally the amount of
P50,000
as civil indemnity; P50,000 as moral damages; P25,000 as exemplary
damages
in view of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling;[68]
and the amount of P18,300 for funeral and religious services. The heirs
of the victim failed to adduce in evidence any receipts or documentary
evidence to prove their claim for food and other expenses during the
wake.
However, they are entitled to temperate damages in the amount of
P5,000,
conformably with the ruling of the Court in People v. dela Tongga.[69]
His wife Luz’s testimony that the victim had an annual income of more
than
P65,000 is not sufficient as basis for an award for unearned income for
being self-serving. There was no proof of the average expense of the
victim
and his family and his net income. In People v. Ereño,[70]
this Court held that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It bears stress that
compensation for lost income is in the nature of damages and as such
requires
due proof of the damage suffered; there must be unbiased proof of the
deceased’s
average income. In the instant case, the victim’s mother, Lita
Honrubia,
gave only a self-serving hence unreliable statement of her deceased
daughter’s
income. Moreover, the award for lost income refers to the net income of
the deceased, that is, her total income less her average expenses. No
proof
of the victim’s average expenses was presented. Hence, there can be no
reliable estimate of the deceased’s lost income.cralaw:red
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Sur,
Branch
31 in Criminal Case No. P-2542 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Appellants
Ronald Castillano alias "Nono" and Jaime Castillano, Jr. alias "Junjun"
are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by
treachery,
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, under Article 248 of the
Revised
Penal Code. There being no modifying circumstances in the commission of
the crime, the appellants are sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion
perpetua, conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. They
are,
likewise, ordered to pay jointly and severally to the heirs of the
victim,
Diosdado Volante, the amounts of P50,000 as civil indemnity; P50,000 as
moral damages; P18,300 as actual damages; P25,000 as exemplary damages;
and P5,000 as temperate damages. Costs against the appellants.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo,
J., (Chairman)
,
Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Austria-Martinez,
JJ.
,
concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Martin P. Badong, Jr.
[2]
Exhibit "B;" born on September 9, 1962; died July 8, 1996 (see Exhibit
"E.")
[3]
TSN, February 17, 1997, p. 33.
[4]
TSN, August 1, 1997, p. 15.
[5]
Id, at 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Records, p. 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Exhibit "G," No. 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Also spelled as "Pornillos" in the Records.
[9]
TSN, March 7, 1997, p. 4.
[10]
TSN, February 3, 1997, p. 5.
[11]
Exhibits "D" to "D-4."
[12]
Exhibits "H" to "H-7."
[13]
Exhibit "H-3."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Exhibit "7."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Exhibit "I."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
TSN, February 3, 1997, p. 11.
[17]
Exhibit "G."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Records, p. 2, Exhibit "A."
[19]
Id., at 8, Exhibit "E."
[20]
Id., at 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Id., at 6-8.
[22]
Id. at 9.
[23]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Exhibit "M."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Rollo, pp. 24.
[26]
Records, pp. 20-21.
[27]
Id., at 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Id., at 31 & 33.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Exhibit "F-5."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Exhibit "F-6."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Exhibit "F."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
TSN, September 23, 1997, pp. 8-9.
[33]
TSN, November 4, 1997, p. 10.
[34]
TSN, July 22, 1997, pp. 5-6.
[35]
Exhibit "4."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
TSN, November 27, 1997, pp. 5-6.
[37]
Exhibits "5" to "9."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
TSN, November 27, 1997, pp. 12-14.
[39]
TSN, March 3, 1998, pp. 4-6.
[40]
Records, p. 297.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
People v. Ocsimar, 253 SCRA 689 (1996).
[42]
People v. Ignacio, 270 SCRA 445 (1997).
[43]
People v. Hubilla, Jr., 252 SCRA 471 (1996).
[44]
Ingles v. Court of Appeals, et al., 269 SCRA 122 (1997); People v.
Gregorio,
255 SCRA 380 (1996).
[45]
TSN, September 23, 1997, p. 12.
[46]
Id., at 29.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
People v. Caras, 234 SCRA 199 (1994).
[48]
Exhibit "H-1."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
People v. Real, 308 SCRA 244 (1999).
[50]
Rollo, pp. 64-65.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[51]
4 JONES ON EVIDENCE, 5th ed., pp. 1768-1769.
[52]
82 Phil. 41 (1948).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[53]
40 Phil. 385 (1919).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[54]
United States v. Grant, 18 Phil. 122 (1910).
[55]
Rollo, pp. 131-133.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[56]
People v. Calegon, 233 SCRA 537 (1994).
[57]
People v. Antonio, 273 SCRA 426 (1997).
[58]
TSN, February 17, 1997, pp. 11-13.
[59]
Id., at 15-16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[60]
People v. Manuel, 236 SCRA 545 (1994).
[61]
People v. Abalde, 329 SCRA 424 (2000).
[62]
People v. Cual, 327 SCRA 623 (2000).
[63]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[64]
People v. Andrade, 322 SCRA 424 (2000).
[65]
Idem., supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[66]
People v. Salvador, G.R. No. 132481, August 14, 2002.
[67]
People v. Deopante, 263 SCRA 691 (1996).
[68]
People v. Rios, 333 SCRA 823 (2000); People v. Catubig, 363 SCRA 621
(2000).
[69]
336 SCRA 687 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[70]
326 SCRA 157 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |