THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
140759
January 24, 2002
-versus-
JACINTO NARVAEZ,
FERNANDO CUTON,
AND EFREN NARVAEZ,
Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO,
J.:
The Case
Before this Court is
the appeal filed by the appellants Jacinto Narvaez, Fernando Cuton and
Efren Narvaez assailing the Decision[1]
dated March 12, 1999 in Criminal Case No. 2576-93 of the Regional Trial
Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch 22, finding them guilty of the crime of
murder
and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The Charge
An Information[1]
was filed by Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Jose M. Velasco, Jr. on
February
23, 1993 charging appellants with the crime of murder, committed as
follows:
"That on or about 9:00
o'clock in the evening of June 24, 1992, at Barangay Langcaan, in the
Municipality
of Dasmariñas, Province of Cavite, 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,
evident premeditation and taking advantage of nighttime, while being
armed
with firearms, did, there and then, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously,
attack and fire at Wilfredo Mantillas hitting the latter on different
parts
of the body and inflicting upon him mortal injuries which directly
caused
his death to the damage and prejudice of the legal heirs of said
Wilfredo
Mantillas."
Arraignment and
Plea
Upon arraignment, appellants,
assisted by counsel, all pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
Thereafter,
trial ensued.
The Trial
The prosecution presented
witnesses Arnel Mendoza ("Mendoza" for brevity), Constancio Pejero,
SPO1
Isagani Simera, SPO3 Apolinar Reyes, Elenita Mantillas, and Virgilio
Pejero.
The defense presented Antonio Delima, Fernando Cuton, Jacinto Narvaez,
and Aida Magsipoc.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Version of the
Prosecution
The version of the prosecution
as summarized in the Solicitor General's Brief[3]
is as follows:
"Prior to the fatal
night of June 24, 1992, appellant Fernando Cuton and the victim
Wilfredo
Mantillas had a fist fight. In the course thereof, Virgilio Pejoro
heard
Cuton utter the words "Hindi kita titigilan".cralaw:red
At around 9:00 p.m.
of June 24, 1992, Arnel Mendoza, on his way home to Sitio Bodega,
Barangay
Langkaan, Dasmariñas, Cavite, coming from Silang, Cavite,
dropped
by the shanty of Domingo Anarna, located at Sitio Humalia, Barangay
Langkaan,
in order to see and convince the victim Mantillas who was then staying
thereat, to sleep in the house of his (Mendoza's) cousin at Sitio
Bodega.
Mendoza was then fearing for the safety of Mantillas, who however
refused
and insisted on staying behind (TSN, April 8, 1997, pp. 3-5).cralaw:red
After staying in the
said shanty for about half an hour, Mendoza left. While he was about
seventy
(70) meters away, he heard several gunshots (TSN, Ibid, pp. 5-7).cralaw:red
Thus, Mendoza looked
back and saw five (5) men. He was able to identify appellants Jacinto
Narvaez,
Fernando Cuton and Efren Narvaez, and their co-accused Justiniano
Pillena,
but was unable to identify the other malefactor who was then holding a
flashlight (TSN, Id., pp. 7-8).cralaw:red
Mendoza was able to
recognize the said malefactor[s] because of the fact that the
aforementioned
individuals likewise reside in the same barangay and had been known to
him since his childhood days, plus the light provided by a small
improvised
kerosene lamp known as "perok-perok" as well as by the flashlight (TSN,
Id., pp. 10-12)
Besides, Mendoza distinctly
heard the familiar voice of appellant Fernando Cuton who shouted
"Mokong
lumabas ka diyan!" (referring to the victim Mantillas). Thereafter,
several
gunshots followed (TSN, Id., pp. 14-15).cralaw:red
Afraid that he might
be seen and harmed by the above-mentioned malefactors, Mendoza moved
farther,
approximately one hundred fifty meters away from the shanty. After the
said assailants had left, some three (3) minutes from their arrival, he
went back to the shanty and saw the bloodied body of Mantillas at the
door
of the hut, sprawled on the ground (TSN, Id., pp. 16-17).cralaw:red
Mendoza immediately
left and went to the house of his cousin Constancio Pejero and related
what he witnessed to the latter. But because it was very late and there
were no vehicles available to bring them to the Barangay Captain of
Barangay
Langkaan or to any barangay official to whom they could report the
incident,
they decided to wait until the following morning (TSN, April 8, 1997,
pp.
17-18; TSN, July 8, 1997, pp. 27-28).cralaw:red
On June 25, 1992, SPO1
Isagani Simera, the police investigator on duty at the PNP
Dasmariñas,
Cavite Police Station, received a report from Barangay Captain Lorenzo
Laudato of Barangay Langkaan regarding the incident. When said
investigator
arrived at the reported scene of the crime, he saw the dead body of
Mantillas
already being carried by several persons outside the shanty. However,
he
was able to recover fifteen (15) empty shells of carbine (Exhs. "H" to
"H-14", inclusive) 5 to 7 meters away from the hut (TSN, July 8, 1997,
pp. 4-10).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Based on the death certificate
(Exh. "D") presented by the victim's mother, Mantillas died of multiple
gunshot wounds."
Version of the
Defense
The version of the defense,
culled from the testimonies of appellants and their witnesses, is
summarized
by the trial court in its decision, to wit:
"The defense, on the
other hand, presented Antonio Delima who testified on the alleged
whereabouts
of the accused on the date and time when Mantillas was killed. Said
witness
swore that when he arrived in his house at around 9:00 o'clock in the
evening
of June 24, 1992, accused Jacinto Narvaez and Efren Narvaez were there
to see him. Jacinto was there to ask for his assistance in seeking a
job
at Hydro Company, Cavite. It appears that Delima had been able to
recommend
more or less five persons already to work in said company as masons,
plumbers
and carpenters. Efren Narvaez, who was hired by Delima to work on his
corn
plantation, was also there to collect his wage. Jacinto testified that
at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, he and Efren Narvaez left
Delima's
house. He then went home and slept.cralaw:red
When on the witness
stand, accused Fernando Cuton testified that at around 8:00 o'clock in
the evening of June 24, 1992 he was in the yard of a neighbor named
Victor
Reyes. He was there to relax his tired body and to chat with Reyes. At
around 9:30 in the evening, he left and went home to sleep.cralaw:red
On October 30, 1997,
an Order was issued by the Court denying the petition for bail filed by
the accused. After the prosecution manifested that it was adopting the
evidence it presented during the hearing on the petition for bail as
its
evidence in chief, the defense recalled Jacinto Narvaez to the witness
stand. Jacinto Narvaez testified that prosecution witness Arnel Mendoza
had falsely testified against him because of a personal rift between
them.
He averred that Arnel Mendoza is the president of Samahan ng "Agaw
Saka"
in Sitio Bodega. Before Mendoza became the president, he was a member
of
said association himself but separated after two (2) months for
according
to him it was not his practice to grab lands which the Samahan Ng "Agaw
Saka" did. According to Jacinto, Mendoza initially asked him to give
two
(2) hectares out of the five (5) hectares of the land of Emerito Ramos
which he was tilling. Though he agreed the first time, he already
refused
when Mendoza asked him to give up two (2) more hectares. This according
to accused Jacinto Narvaez infuriated Mendoza. On cross-examination,
Jacinto
said that this took place more or less ten (10) years ago. He likewise
admitted that when he gave up two (2) hectares to Mendoza, this was
without
the knowledge and consent of the owner Emerito Ramos. When asked
whether
he filed a complaint against Mendoza, accused answered in the negative.cralaw:red
To rebut the testimony
of accused Jacinto Narvaez, the prosecution recalled Arnel Mendoza to
take
the witness stand. Mendoza denied that he is the president of Samahan
ng
"Agaw Saka". He is, however, a member of the Buklod Ng Magbubukid Sa
Lupang
Ramos, Inc., a corporation whose Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws
were duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(Exhibit
"I"). He is also trustee and incorporator of said corporation (Exhibit
"1-2"). He also denied that he was given by accused Jacinto Narvaez a
portion
of the land tenanted by the latter. He knew though that accused Jacinto
Narvaez sold his right as a tenant to a portion of the land he was
tilling
to another person. He is also in the Hacienda Ng Lupaing Ramos.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The defense also presented
Aida R. Magsipoc, Forensic Chemist from the National Bureau of
Investigation.
She testified that on June 27, 1992, accused Jacinto Narvaez and
Fernando
Cuton were subjected [to] paraffin examination as per request of Senior
Inspector Leonardo Notario, OCI, PNP Dasmariñas Police Station,
Dasmariñas, Cavite. According to her and as indicated in her
Chemistry
Report No. C-92-435 (Exhibit "1"), the diphenylamine-paraffin test for
nitrates conducted on the dorsal aspects of the left and right hands
from
the wrist joint to the fingertips of accused Jacinto Narvaez gave
negative
results (Exhibit "1-d"). Likewise, the paraffin test for nitrates
conducted
on the dorsal aspects of the left and right hands from the wrist joint
to the fingertips of accused Fernando Cuton gave negative results
(Exhibit
"2-d") as shown in her Chemistry Report No. C-92-436 (Exhibit "2").
When
asked to interpret the results of the examination in layman's terms,
Forensic
Chemist Magsipoc categorically stated that the accused could not have
fired
a firearm (tsn, March 16, 1998, p. 26). Though the examination was
conducted
on June 27, 1992 at 11:25 in the morning while the shooting incident
took
place on June 24, 1992 at 9:00 o'clock in the evening, Magsipoc said
that
traces of nitrate would stay or remain on the skin of a living subject
who has fired a firearm for 72 hours or 3 days (ibid, pp. 34-35).
According
to her, acids, like vinegar, would only lessen but not wash off
nitrates.
Washing ones hands with boiling water could be resorted to wash off
nitrates.
The water must be steaming hot in order to open the pores of the skin
thus
removing the nitrates. In the case of accused Jacinto Narvaez and
Fernando
Cuton, Magsipoc believes that they have not resorted to this process;
because
if they did, it would have been detected."
The Trial Court's
Ruling
The trial court accorded
full faith and credence to the testimony of prosecution witness Mendoza
and disregarded appellants' defense of alibi. It held that the
inconsistencies
between Mendoza's testimony in court and his sworn statement to the
police
strengthened rather than weakened his credibility. On the other hand,
the
trial court found the defense of alibi weak being unreliable and
susceptible
to fabrication. It further ruled that the fact that the warrants of
arrest
were returned unserved, since appellants could not be found in their
given
address, is indicative of flight and bolsters the finding of guilt
against
appellants. Lastly, the trial court disregarded the paraffin test for
nitrates
conducted on appellants Jacinto Narvaez and Fernando Cuton saying that
the same is not conclusive proof that one has not fired a gun.cralaw:red
The trial court pronounced
judgment thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"WHEREFORE, in view
of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
Jacinto Narvaez, Fernando Cuton and Efren Narvaez guilty of the crime
of
murder, the killing of Wilfredo Mantillas qualified by treachery. As
the
crime was committed on June 24, 1992 when the death penalty was not yet
in effect, the said accused are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua because of the presence of the aggravating
circumstance
of nocturnity.cralaw:red
The said accused are
likewise ordered to pay the heirs of Wilfredo Mantillas the following
amounts:
1) P50,000.00 - as indemnity
for the death of Wilfredo Mantillas;
2) P50,000.00 - as moral
damages;
3) P30,000.00 - as exemplary
damages;
4) P 7,000.00 - expenses
during the wake of Wilfredo Mantillas; and
5) P40,000.00 - funeral
expenses.cralaw:red
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED."[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, the instant appeal.
The Issues
Appellants now come
to this Court seeking reversal of the conviction and assigning the
following
errors:
"I
DID THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED (SIC) WHEN IT GAVE DUE CREDENCE ON THE ASSERTION OF THE
INCREDIBLE
AND LIAR WITNESS ARNEL MENDOZA?
II
DID THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED (SIC) BY CONCLUDING THAT THERE IS FLIGHT WHEN THE ACCUSED WERE
NOT
APPREHENDED BY WARRANT OFFICER (POLICEMAN) DESPITE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS
OF ARREST AGAINST THEM?
III
DID THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED (SIC) WHEN IT DID NOT CONSIDER THE FORENSIC REPORT OF NBI CHEMIST
AIDA MAGSINOC THAT YIELDED NEGATIVE RESULT."
The Court's Ruling
We find the appeal meritorious.cralaw:red
In convicting the appellants,
the trial court relied exclusively on the testimony of Arnel Mendoza,
the
principal witness presented by the prosecution as an eyewitness to the
crime.cralaw:red
The time-honored rule
is that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate
courts
will not disturb the findings of the trial court unless it has plainly
overlooked certain facts of substance.[5]
This Court accords, as a general rule, conclusiveness to a lower
court's
findings of fact unless it is shown, inter alia, that: (1) the
conclusion
is a finding grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the
inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is a
grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) the
judgment
is based on a misapprehension of facts; and (5) the findings of fact
are
conflicting.[6]
This case falls within
the exception as the trial court misappreciated vital facts and made
manifestly
mistaken and absurd inferences on important matters.cralaw:red
In the first assignment
of error, the appellants contend that the trial court erred in giving
weight
and credence to the inconsistent testimonies of prosecution witness
Mendoza.
The appellants argue that contrary to the finding of the trial court,
the
inconsistencies in the testimony of Mendoza do not strengthen but
rather
cast grave doubt on his credibility. The appellants point out that
there
are circumstances that lead to the conclusion that it was impossible
for
witness Mendoza to have positively identified them as the perpetrators
of the crime.cralaw:red
First, prosecution witness
Mendoza had already walked a distance of about 70 meters from the
shanty
where the victim was staying when Mendoza first heard the burst of
gunfire.
When Mendoza looked back, there was still gunfire. He then laid flat on
the ground to observe what was happening. While lying down, he saw and
recognized the appellants in the yard outside the shanty.[7]
This can be gleaned from the following testimony of Mendoza:
"Q. After 30 minutes,
you left the shanty of Domingo Anarna. And while you were walking on
your
way home, do you recall of any unusual incident?
A. From the time I talked
with Wilfredo Mantillas, and I was not very far from the shanty, I
already
heard gunshots.cralaw:red
Q. When you heard the
burst of gunshots, from where is that?
A. When I look back,
there was firing.cralaw:red
Q. What did you do after
you heard the burst of gunshots?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A. I lay on the ground
and observe what's happening.cralaw:red
Q. What happened while
you were lying on the ground?
A. From the place where
I was lying, I saw Jacinto Narvaez, Fernando Cuton, Efren Narvaez and
Justiniano
Pillena while one of their companions were flashlighting them."[8]
At the second burst
of gunfire, witness Mendoza hid himself by moving farther, more than
double
the distance, to about 150 meters away.[9]
Mendoza also described
the shanty as remotely situated and the nearest hut was 150 meters
away.
Mendoza testified that:
"Q: It is obvious that
no nipa hut near to the hut of Domingo Anarna?
A: There is a shanty
nearby, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Who owns that shanty?
A: The shanty of Constancio
Pejoro.cralaw:red
Q: How far is his shanty
of Constancio Pejoro from the hut of Domingo Anarna?
A: Almost 150 meters."[10]
(Emphasis supplied).cralaw:red
The shanty where the
victim was killed was practically an isolated place. A person at the
nearest
hut could not recognize another standing at the yard of the shanty
where
the killing took place. Prosecution witness SPO1 Simera testified as
follows:
"Q: When you went to
the crime scene, did you try to look into the vicinity of the scene?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: And did you notice
any nearest hut, if any, to the hut where the cadaver of Mr. Mantillas
was found?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: There was a hut but
it is very far, sir.cralaw:red
Q: In your estimate
from that nipa hut which according to you is very far, it is very
impossible
for a person to recognize a person stationed near the hut of Mr.
Mantillas?
A: 'Lalo na kung gabi
mahirap makilala.'
Q: You probably saw
one very far nipa hut?
A: Yes, sir."[11]
(Emphasis supplied).cralaw:red
It is highly doubtful
if a person can recognize the faces of the assailants 70 meters away at
around 9:00 p.m. without sufficient illumination directly hitting the
faces
of the assailants. It was held that the distance of 40[12]
to 50[13]
meters from the scene of the crime, taken by itself, may lead the court
to entertain doubt on the accuracy of what a witness had observed.
Here,
such doubt is magnified by the fact that the distance is about 70 to
150
meters with the surroundings quite dark. Prosecution witness SPO1
Simera
confirmed that at 70 meters and even 150 meters, it would be difficult
to recognize a person at nighttime. Simera testified that:
"Q: In your experience
as investigator at a distance of 70 meters away from an alleged human
being
during nighttime, can you identify a person?
A: It is hard to recognize
a person even there was moonlight.cralaw:red
Q: Much more if that
alleged human being was 150 meters away?
A: Yes, sir. It is far."[14]
Mendoza himself admitted
categorically that at a distance of 150 meters, he could no longer see
or distinguish a person. Mendoza testified that:
"Q: And as a matter
of fact, that distance of 150 meters away where you lay flat, you can
hardly
see the hut of Domingo Anarna because it was very dark?
A: I can still see,
sir (aninag pa).cralaw:red
Q: But the person at
that far, you cannot distinguish anymore from the place where you lay
flat?
A: Yes, sir because
of the dark you cannot see."[15]
(Emphasis supplied).cralaw:red
There is even greater
difficulty in recognizing what lies ahead when the witness is lying
flat
on the ground, aided only by the light coming from a flashlight some 70
meters away. Mendoza's testimony in court that he laid flat on the
ground
at a distance of 70 meters from the shanty contradicts his sworn
statement
to the police that he laid flat on the ground at a distance of 150
meters.
Mendoza's statement to the police states:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"T: Matapos mong lumayo,
ano ang sumunod na ginawa mo?
S: Lumayo po ako pero
dumapa sa may distansiyang Isangdaan at Limampung metros, at doon ay
nakiramdam.
Nang makita kong nag-alisan na sila sa kubong iyon ay saka ako lumapit
at nakita kong nakabuwal sa tabi ng pinto si Wilfredo Mantillas kaya
agad
akong umalis ulit at nagpunta sa kubo ni Constancio Pejoro at sinabi sa
kanya ang nakita kong pangyayari"[16]
What is undisputed from
Mendoza's testimony and sworn statement is that he was lying flat on
the
ground when he saw and recognized the assailants. In this position, his
view of the shanty was obstructed by the sloping contour of the land.
On
cross-examination, Mendoza stated that:
"Q: And likewise, you
will admit that because you said you are very familiar with the said
place.
The area or the direction you walked into is a slopy (sic) area
descending
little by little?
A: From the hut going
to the road is a plain road.cralaw:red
Q: Actually, it was
not very plain, it was slopy?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: Yes, but not so slopy.cralaw:red
x x x
Q: From that trunk of
the mango tree, the land is descending a little? To clarify, from the
mango
tree up to the trunk of the mango tree going East?
A: Yes, sir, it is descending
a little.cralaw:red
COURT: This Court would
like to be clarified. The trunk of mango tree from the hut, how far is
that, from where the incident happened
A: More or less 150
meters, sir.cralaw:red
Q: And also, I supposed
that you are very familiar with the place because the portion of the
land
from where the mango tree used to be erected before which was
descending,
when you lay flat on the said trunk, you could hardly see the hut of
Domingo
Anarna?
A: I could hardly see
at the place I lay down flat."[17]
(Emphasis supplied).cralaw:red
Moreover, while lying
flat on the ground, Mendoza's view of the shanty was also obstructed by
the bamboo fence around the shanty, the mango trees along the path
taken
by Mendoza, as well as the fully-grown sugar cane which surrounded the
shanty. The shanty was not elevated, and its flooring was level with
the
ground. Prosecution witness SPO1 Isagani Simera who inspected the crime
scene the morning after the killing revealed these facts. Simera
testified
on direct examination as follows:
"Q: Do you recall whether
there was a visible fence in the premises where the nipa hut was
erected?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: There is a bamboo
fence, sir.cralaw:red
x x x
Q: Is this nipa hut
with elevated flooring?
A: No, sir, It is level."[18]
Simera further testified
on cross-examination that:
"Q: You testified here
that you saw a road which in your sketch was on the eastern portion of
the hut. Did you notice mango trees?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: There are mango trees
there?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: There are several
mango trees lining that eastern portion of the road already?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: And I suppose you
are very familiar as police investigator of the nature of locations.
You
will admit that the portion of land where there are these mango trees
exactly
on the eastern portion of the road at slope area?
A: The road is plain
but the mango trees is sloping down.cralaw:red
Q: Whenever a person
is situated on that sloped portion of the area it would be very
difficult
for that person who is "nakadapa" to see a person there in the nipa hut?
A: If he is in a higher
level it could be seen but if he is down in a sloping position he could
not see.cralaw:red
Q: Specially if it is
nighttime when there was no moonlight?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
x x x
Q: You said that the
nipa hut was surrounded by bamboo fence?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Is that bamboo fence
all throughout?
A: Not really surrounded,
sir. It has "patlang". "Dahil nasira na siguro."
Q: I suppose you also
noticed the plants which actually surrounded the nipa hut where the
victim
was actually killed?
A: I cannot remember.
It seems there was.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: At the time you went
there, there are sugar cane still planted thereon?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: And the sugar cane
plants surrounded the nipa hut?
A: Yes, sir. The place
where it is situated.cralaw:red
Q: You will admit at
the time that sugar cane plants were even more than human size in
height?
A: I was not able to
give importance or attention to that but the sugar cane were fully
grown,
sir.cralaw:red
Q: And you will notice
that the sugar cane plants spread as far as the edge of the road?
A: Not all parts, sir."[19]
(Emphasis supplied).cralaw:red
SPO1 Simera's testimony
contradicts Mendoza's claim on the witness stand that there were no
fully-grown
sugar cane plants that obstructed his view. Mendoza testified that:
"Q: The place is an
open field with plants planted thereon?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: Yes, sir but there
were no plants at the time.cralaw:red
Q: You will agree with
me that even the hut of Domingo Anarna was surrounded by plants like
guyabano
and kakawate trees?
A: There were three
(3) kakawate trees at the back and also plants but in front, there were
no plants.cralaw:red
Q: Are you not aware
that banana plants were planted from the vicinity of the crime, almost
surrounding the nipa hut?
A: The banana plants
were planted from the boundary.cralaw:red
Q: As a matter of fact,
these plants can easily defer your vision from the place of 150 meters
away from the hut of Domingo Anarna?
A: From the hut going
to the road, nothing will obstruct my vision from the hut."[20]
(Emphasis supplied).cralaw:red
Moreover, Mendoza recognized
the assailants only when they were already inside the bamboo fence of
the
shanty. Naturally, the bamboo fence stood between Mendoza and the
assailants,
thereby obstructing, partially or totally, his view of them. Mendoza
testified
that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q: When you were able
to recognize these person or accused because of such flashlight, where
were these accused? Were they staying at the yard or outside the yard?
A: When I recognized
them, they were exactly inside the yard, near the fence."[21]
Second, the trial court
erred in finding that the light coming from the "perok-perok" aided
prosecution
witness Mendoza in identifying the assailants. It is clear from the
direct[22]
and cross-examination[23]
of Mendoza that the illumination outside the shanty and around the yard
area came solely from the flashlight. The trial court made a finding
that
the light that aided Mendoza to identify the appellants came from the
"perok-perok"
inside the shanty, as well as from the flashlight held by the
unidentified
companion of the assailants. Such finding is erroneous since it is
obvious
from the account of Mendoza that it was only the flashlight, and not
the
"perok-perok", that illuminated the darkness outside the shanty.
Witness
Mendoza testified on direct examination as follows:
"Q: You stated that
this shanty is located or you were in the shanty about June 24, 1992.
Do
you recall if there were lights outside? According to you, you saw
these
persons Jacinto Narvaez, Justiniano Pillena, Fernando Cuton and Efren
Narvaez?
A: Outside, there was
no light but inside the shanty there is perok-perok which is very small.cralaw:red
Q: How were you able
to recognize this Efren Narvaez, Jacinto Narvaez, Fernando Cuton and
Justiniano
Pillena?
A: Because they were
lighted by the flashlight which is being carried by one of their
companions."[24]
(Emphasis supplied).cralaw:red
On cross-examination,
witness Mendoza further testified:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q: It was very bare,
the light at the time?
A: Only the light from
the perok-perok inside the hut and the flashlight.cralaw:red
Q: And that light of
perok-perok cannot even shed light outside the hut?
A: No, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: That overall vicinity
was very dark, you will admit that?
A: Yes, sir, the surroundings
are dark.cralaw:red
Q. As a matter of fact,
you can hardly identify persons at the distance of 150 meters away
because
of the dark?
A. It is really very
difficult to recognize person from that distance.cralaw:red
Q. At the distance of
70 meters, because of darkness, in an open field, you have likewise
difficulties
to recognize a person?
A. It is really very
difficult to recognize."[25]
(Emphasis supplied).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Clearly, there was no
other source of light outside of the shanty except for the one coming
from
the flashlight. Except for this light, Mendoza admitted that the
surroundings
of the shanty were "dark". Although it has been held in a line of cases
that illumination produced by a flashlight is sufficient to permit
identification
of a person,[26]
the flashlight in such cases is held by the witness and not by the
accused.[27]
This difference is significant because in the cases where it is the
witness
carrying the flashlight, he is able to point the light at the
assailants
and focus the light on their faces, thus identifying them. In the
present
case, where the flashlight was held by a companion of the assailants,
the
stream of light from the flashlight was most probably focused not on
the
faces of the assailants but either on the ground to light the way of
the
assailants, or on the shanty, or alternately on both.cralaw:red
On cross-examination,
Mendoza stated that at a distance of 70 meters he saw the person
carrying
the flashlight[28]
enter the shanty, with all the assailants walking in front of him.[29]
Mendoza testified as follows:
"Q: You claimed that
the person who was holding the flashlight and he is going to what
direction?
A: Going inside the
shanty because he was outside.cralaw:red
Q: Was he outside the
shanty?
A: Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: In relation to the
four (4) accused, where are they?
A: They were in front
of the one carrying the flashlight."[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The illumination coming
from the flashlight came from behind the assailants and was most
probably
pointed towards the ground to light the way of the assailants. The most
that Mendoza could have seen in the surrounding darkness at a distance
of 70 meters would be the silhouettes of the assailants. Visibility is
a vital factor in the determination of whether or not an eyewitness
could
identify the perpetrators of a crime.[31]
Third, the distance
of 70 meters, and then 150 meters, is admittedly too far for a person
to
ascertain, in dark surroundings, what another person may be carrying in
his hands. This is evident from the testimony of Mendoza on
cross-examination:
"Q: It is even very
difficult to recognize at a distance of 70 and 150 meters away, as you
mentioned from where you were, to determine whether a person is
carrying
a gun or whatever he carries?
A: Yes, sir, I cannot
determine."[32]
(Emphasis supplied).cralaw:red
Mendoza's admission
that he could not see what the assailants were carrying contradicts his
sworn statement to the police that from a distance of 150 meters he saw
the four assailants each carrying a "carbine". A "carbine" is defined
as
a "short light rifle".[33]
However, as generally understood in this country, a "carbine" refers to
the U.S. carbine M1 .30 caliber rifle.[34]
It is highly improbable that a person could identify a carbine at a
distance
of 150 or even 70 meters at 9:00 p.m. in dark surroundings with only a
flashlight illuminating the pathway of the persons carrying the
carbines.
Even Mendoza admitted this, conceding categorically that he "cannot
determine"
what a person might be carrying at those distances.cralaw:red
The statements of Mendoza
on the carbines allegedly carried by the assailants are quite
conflicting.
On direct examination, Mendoza failed to mention that he saw the
assailants
carrying the carbines. On cross-examination, he testified as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q: At a distance of
70 meters away, because of darkness, you can hardly distinguish any
firearm
or anything being carried by a person at that distance.cralaw:red
A: It can hardly be
seen.cralaw:red
Q: More so, if this
is 150 meters away?
A: Yes, sir if it is
dark."[35]
(Emphasis supplied).cralaw:red
On the other hand, the
sworn statement of Mendoza given to the police the day after the
killing
stated he saw the assailants carrying carbines. Mendoza's statement to
the police is as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"T: Noong ikaw ay dumapa
at nakiramdam, gaanong katagal ang inilagi nina Jacinto Narvaez sa may
kubong iyon?
S: Humigit kumulang
po sa tatlong minutos.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
T: Habang ikaw ay nakadapa,
nakita mo ba ang ginawa nina Jacinto Narvaez doon sa may kubo?
S: Nakita ko po lamang
na sila ay pumasok sa kubo at pagkatapos ay lumabas din agad. Lahat
sila
ay may hawak na mahabang baril.cralaw:red
T: Anong baril ang nakita
mong dala nila?
S: Mga karbin."[36]
The weapons used in
the killing of the victim were carbine rifles. The police recovered the
day after the killing fifteen empty carbine shells at the scene of the
crime.[37]
However, Mendoza, an alleged eyewitness to the shooting who claimed to
have recognized the faces of the assailants, inexplicably failed to
mention
in his testimony in court that the assailants carried carbines.
Moreover,
Mendoza admitted in his testimony that from where he was lying flat on
the ground, he could not determine if the assailants were carrying
anything
in their hands because of the distance and the darkness. If the
distance
and darkness prevented Mendoza from seeing what the assailants carried,
then the same distance and darkness also prevented Mendoza from
recognizing
the faces of the assailants. Mendoza's testimony in court is incredible
as well as inconsistent on a very material matter with his sworn
statement
to the police.cralaw:red
The general rule has
always been that discrepancies between the statements of the witness in
his affidavit and those he makes on the witness stand do not
necessarily
discredit him[38]
because it is a matter of judicial experience that an affidavit taken
ex
parte is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate[39].
The exceptions thereto, which impair the credibility of the witness,
are:
(1) when the narration in the sworn statement substantially contradicts
the testimony in court, or (2) when the omission in the affidavit
refers
to a very important detail of the incident that one relating the
incident
as an eyewitness cannot be expected to fail to mention.[40]
The point of inquiry is whether the contradictions are important and
substantial,
and in this case we find the contradictions touching on important and
substantial
matters.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fourth, even if witness
Mendoza and the appellants reside in the same barrio, which should make
identification an easy task,[41]
the fact remains that what Mendoza could have seen, from a distance of
70 or 150 meters in dark surroundings, were mere shadows and
silhouettes.
The claim that witness Mendoza was able to identify one of the
assailants
because he heard him shout[42]
is likewise incredible considering his distance from the crime scene
and
considering that based on natural human experience, a person's voice
range
changes when he is shouting. It is highly unlikely that Mendoza was
able
to associate the voice he heard to be that of appellant Fernando Cuton.cralaw:red
In sum, Mendoza's identification
of the appellants as the assailants of the victim Wilfredo Mantillas is
improbable due to the factual situation described by Mendoza himself.
This
improbability is buttressed by the testimony of prosecution witness
SPO1
Simera who described the barriers that obstructed the view of Mendoza.
Moreover, Mendoza's testimony in court contradicts on vital facts his
sworn
statement to the police. We entertain grave and serious doubts on the
credibility
of Mendoza's testimony.cralaw:red
As to the second assignment
of error, the prosecution relies heavily on the fact that the warrants
of arrest issued against appellants were returned unserved, with the
notation
"subject persons cannot be found in their given address"[43].
The trial court considered this as flight and indicative of the guilt
of
the appellants. The prosecution, however, failed to rebut the testimony
of Jacinto Narvaez that they did not leave their place of residence
anytime
before January 30, 1997.[44]
Jacinto Narvaez testified on cross-examination that:
"Q: Do you remember
of any instance where any police officers went to your place looking
for
you in order to serve his warrant of arrest?
A: Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: In September, 1993?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: But they did not
arrest you, is that what you mean?
A: I was arrested, sir.cralaw:red
Q: I want to inform
you Mr. Witness that the date of your arrest is January, 1997. Now, my
question is whether police officer (sic) went to your place sometime in
September, 1993 in order to serve this warrant of arrest to you?
ATTY. PELEO: Witness
already answered, your honor.cralaw:red
COURT: That police officer
went there but they were not arrested.cralaw:red
A: I was not arrested
in September 1993, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Do you recall the
police officer who went in your place during that time?
A: Pol, sir."[45]
There is a disparity
among these circumstances: (1) that the warrants of arrest were
returned
unserved since the appellants could not be found in their given
address;
(2) that appellants did not leave their place of residence anytime
prior
to their arrest in January 1997; and (3) that a policeman went to
appellants'
place in September 1993 without arresting any of them, which the
evidence
for the prosecution cannot and did not reconcile. The mere fact that
the
warrants of arrest were returned unserved does not automatically mean
that
appellants went into hiding. Neither can the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official duties by the police officers be
considered
in this case. The presumption of innocence is not a mere procedural
tool
of the law; it is not overcome by the presumption of regularity.[46]
Lastly, as to the third
assignment of error, appellants argue that the trial court erred in not
giving weight to the testimony of NBI forensic chemist Aida Magsipoc
who
testified on the negative results of the paraffin tests. While a
negative
result on a paraffin test is not conclusive proof that an accused did
not
fire a gun, such fact if considered with the other circumstances of the
case, may be taken as an indication of his innocence.[47]
The prosecution's evidence must stand or fall on its own merit, and
cannot
draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense.[48]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The prosecution has
the obligation of proving beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the
malefactors
and their participation in the commission of the crime charged.[49]
A judgment of conviction may be rendered only when the conscience is
satisfied
that the crime was indeed committed by the persons on trial. The mind
cannot
rest easy if a case is resolved against the accused based on evidence
replete
with glaring inconsistencies, missing links and loose ends that refuse
to tie up.[50]
For only when there is proof beyond reasonable doubt can we be morally
certain that only those responsible are held answerable.[51]
When the prosecution fails to present such proof, the charge must be
dismissed.cralaw:red
The participation of
appellants in the killing of the victim Wilfredo Mantillas not having
been
proven beyond reasonable doubt, we hold that the appellants should be
absolved.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the Decision
dated March 12, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite,
Branch
22, in Criminal Case No. 2576-93 finding appellants Jacinto Narvaez,
Fernando
Cuton and Efren Narvaez guilty of the crime of murder, is hereby
REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Appellants are ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the
ground
of reasonable doubt. They are ordered IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from
confinement
unless held for any other lawful cause. No costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Melo, J., (Chairman), Vitug,
Panganiban, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang.
[2]
Rollo, p. 6.
[3]
Brief for the Appellee, pp. 4-7, Rollo, pp. 79-82. The Brief was signed
by Solicitor General Ricardo P. Galvez, Asst. Solicitor General
Magdangal
M. de Leon and Solicitor Bernard G. Hernandez.
[4]
Rollo, p. 34chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
.
[5]
People vs. Abacia, G.R. No. 135552-53, June 21, 2001 citing People vs.
Mangat, 310 SCRA 101 (1999); People vs. Gatchalian, 300 SCRA 1 (1998).
[6]
Diaz vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 136505, December 15, 2001 citing Cosep
vs. People, 290 SCRA 378 (1998) and Tan vs. SandIganbayan, 225 SCRA 156
(1993); Fule vs. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 698 (1998) citing Garcia
vs.
Court of Appeals, 33 SCRA 622 (1970) and Roque vs. Buan, 21 SCRA 642
(1967).
[7]
TSN, April 8, 1997, pp. 7 and 13.
[8]
Ibid, pp. 6-8.
[9]
Ibid, p. 29.
[10]
Ibid, p. 23.
[11]
TSN, July 8, 1997, pp. 20-21.
[12]
People vs. Castillo, 261 SCRA 493 (1996).
[13]
People vs. Alagon, 325 SCRA 297 (2000).
[14]
TSN, July 8, 1997, p. 24.
[15]
Ibid, pp. 48-49.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Records of Criminal Case No. 2576-93, p. 7.
[17]
TSN, April 8, 1997, pp. 36-39.
[18]
TSN, July 8, 1997, p. 12.
[19]
Ibid, pp. 21-24.
[20]
TSN, April 8, 1997, pp. 30-32.
[21]
Ibid, pp. 11-12.
[22]
Ibid, pp. 10-11.
[23]
Ibid, pp. 32-33.
[24]
Ibid, pp. 10-11.
[25]
Ibid, pp. 32-33.
[26]
People vs. Ronas, G.R. No. 128088 and 146639, January 31, 2001 citing
People
vs. Adoviso 309 SCRA 1 (1999).
[27]
People vs. Fabrigas, Jr., 261 SCRA 436 (1996); People vs. Loste, 210
SCRA
614 (1992).
[28]
TSN, April 8, 1997, p. 45.
[29]
Ibid, p. 46.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Ibid, pp. 45-46.
[31]
People vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. 136094, April 20, 2001 citing People vs.
Adoviso,
309 SCRA 1 (1999); People vs. Mansueto, 336 SCRA 715 (2000) citing
People
vs. Binas, 320 SCRA 22 (1999).
[32]
TSN, April 8, 1997, p. 33.
[33]
Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary, p. 221 (1989); The New
Oxford
Dictionary of English, p. 273 (1999).
[34]
People vs. Gutierrez, 315 SCRA 490 (1999).
[35]
Ibid, p. 50.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
Rollo, p. 26.
[37]
Ibid, p. 27.
[38]
People vs. Ortiz, G.R. No. 133814, July 17, 2001 citing People vs.
Travero,
276 SCRA 301 (1997).
[39]
Ibid, citing People vs. Abrera, 238 SCRA 1 (1997).
[40]
People vs. Castillo, supra, see note 12, citing People vs. Calegan, 233
SCRA 537 (1994).
[41]
People vs. Castillo, supra, see note 12.
[42]
TSN, April 8, 1997, pp. 14-15.
[43]
Rollo, p. 24.
[44]
TSN, September 29, 1997, pp. 31-35.
[45]
Ibid, pp. 33-35.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 133001, December 14, 2000; People vs. Sevilla,
339 SCRA 625 (2000); People vs. Lagmay, 306 SCRA 157 (1999).
[47]
People vs. Rugay, 291 SCRA 692 (1998) citing People vs. Magallanes, 23
SCRA 1275 (1968).
[48]
People vs. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 140001, June 27, 2001 citing People vs.
Vidal, 308 SCRA 1 (1998); People vs. Preciados, G.R. No. 122934,
January
5, 2001; People vs. Bariquit, 341 SCRA 600 (2000).
[49]
People vs. Leonardo, 332 SCRA 717 (2000) citing Santiago vs. Court of
Appeals,
295 SCRA 334 (1998).
[50]
People vs. Guillermo, 336 SCRA 247 (2000) citing People vs. Gomez, 270
SCRA 432 (1997); People vs. Ladrillo, 320 SCRA 61 (1999).
[51]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |