THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
144589
June 16, 2003
-versus-
JUANITO PACUANCUAN,
Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The credibility of witnesses
is best determined by the Trial Judge, who has the direct opportunity
to
observe and evaluate their demeanor on the witness stand. The
trial
court’s findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal, unless there
is a clear showing that it plainly overlooked matters of substance
which,
if considered, might affect the results of the review.chanrobles virtual law library The Case
Juanito Pacuancuan appeals
the May 19, 2001 decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City (Branch 23) in Criminal
Case No. 23-882, finding him guilty of murder as follows:
"WHEREFORE,
the prosecution having convincingly and satisfactorily proven the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offense charged, without
any mitigating and aggravating circumstance to consider, the court
hereby
sentences the accused to RECLUSION PERPETUA, with all the accessory
penalties
provided for by law; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased victim the
sum of P100,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages and the
additional
sum of P500,000.00 by way of moral and exemplary damages, and to pay
the
costs."[2]
The Information[3]
dated December 2, 1998, charged appellant in these words:
"That on or about the
15th day of October, 1998, in the [M]unicipality of Aurora, [P]rovince
of Isabela, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, with intent to kill and with evident
premeditation
and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
assault, attack and stab with a pointed/bladed instrument one Jonathan
Perdido, inflicting upon him a stab wound 1 inch wide, 3-4 inches deep,
1 centimeter above the nipple, which directly caused his death."[4]
Upon his arraignment
on February 3, 1999,[5]
appellant, assisted by his counsel,[6]
pleaded not guilty. After trial in due course, the court a quo
rendered
the assailed Decision.
The Facts
Version of the
Prosecution
In its Brief, the Office
of the Solicitor General (OSG) presents the prosecution’s version of
the
facts in the following manner:
"About 9:00
P.M. of October 15, 1998, Ferdinand Evangelista and Jonathan Perdido
were
at Abresias’ Lomi House, located at San Pedro-San Pablo, Aurora,
Isabela,
seated at a table and drinking beer. Also inside the eatery were
two persons identified by Evangelista in court as Juanito Pacuancuan
and
a companion named Domingo Saring. While inside the eatery, an
[altercation]
ensued between Pacuancuan’s group and [Perdido’s] over the use of the
eatery’s
videoke microphone. At about 10:30 P.M., Perdido and Evangelista
went out of the eatery. Evangelista left Perdido at the
‘lomi
haus’ and proceeded to a nearby burger stand located a few meters south
of the lomi haus for a snack.chanrobles virtual law library
"About 10:40 p.m.
of
October 15, 1998, Roman Tumayao was on the second floor of his house,
which
was located along the highway about twenty (20) meters away from the
‘lomi
haus.’ Thereat, Tumayao saw two persons standing along the
highway
near his house. Tumayao heard one of them say ‘We go back he is
only
a tricycle driver,’ whom Tumayao pointed to in court as Juanito
Pacuancuan.
Tumayao then heard the other person, who was embracing Pacuancuan,
reply
‘No more, we just go home because it is bright,’ referring to the light
in front of Tumayao’s house. But Pacuancuan refused and said
[they
will put off the light]. After the light was turned off,
Pacuancuan
extricated himself from the hold of his companion and immediately
proceeded
to the ‘lomi haus.’ Evangelista, who was about seven (7) meters
away
and unaware that Pacuancuan was armed thought that Pacuancuan merely
boxed
Perdido in front of the ‘lomi haus’ without any warning or provocation.
"Tumayao heard a
commotion
from the ‘lomi haus’ and subsequently saw Pacuancuan return to where
his
companion was and told him ‘Let us go home it is already
finished.’
Both of them ran towards Roxas.
"Evangelista saw
Perdido
running away towards the Cagayan Valley Sanitarium Hospital where he
died.
The parties agreed that the cause of death was hemorrhage due to a stab
wound as shown in the Death Certificate."[7]
(Citations omitted.) Version of the
Defense
Appellant interposes
the defenses of denial and alibi. His version of the facts is as
follows:
"He
testified
that on the date of the stabbing he was in their house at San Pedro,
San
Pablo, Isabela, where he was staying with his sister. He claims
that
he could have been mistaken as the assailant because he probably
resembled
the latter."[8]
(Citations omitted.)chanrobles virtual law library Ruling of
the
Trial Court
After evaluating the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court ruled that
appellant
was the perpetrator of the crime, and that treachery qualified
the
killing to murder. He was found to have swiftly and suddenly
stabbed
the unsuspecting victim on the chest without any warning, thereby
depriving
the latter of any opportunity to defend himself.cralaw:red
Hence, this appeal.[9]
Issues
In his Brief, appellant
raises the following issues for our consideration:
"I
The court a quo
erred
in giving credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and in
disregarding
the testimony of the accused-appellant.
"II
The lower court
erred
in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
murder."[10]
Simply put, the issue
is whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are
sufficiently
credible to convict appellant of murder.
The Court’s Ruling
The appeal has no merit.cralaw:red
Sole Issue:
Credibility of the Prosecution Witnesses
Appellant contends that
a review of the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies shows that they are
too inconsistent, absurd and unreliable to sustain a conviction.
He maintains that the RTC should not have disregarded the testimonies
given
by him and his brother-in-law.chanrobles virtual law library
Appellant argues that
the testimony of Evangelista is riddled with inconsistencies. The
latter testified on direct examination that no conversation between
appellant
and the victim preceded the stabbing. On cross-examination,
however,
this witness stated that a heated argument did transpire between the
two
and their respective groups.cralaw:red
On the other hand, Tumayao
testified that, from inside his house, he saw appellant on that fateful
night despite a brownout. On the other hand, the latter contends
that the former could not have identified the assailant, since there
could
not have been any light from an electric bulb that could have
illuminated
the front of the house where the stabbing occurred.cralaw:red
Appellant asks why,
as Tumayao narrated, the police patrol car that was then roaming the
vicinity
did not even chase or apprehend the former when he ran away.
Appellant
described as similarly absurd the prosecution testimony that the
victim,
after being stabbed, kept on running until he reached the hospital,
without
seeking help from Evangelista who was the latter’s companion.cralaw:red
Appellant claims that
the prosecution did not even inquire -- either from the victim’s family
or from the hospital where the victim died -- about any weapon that
might
have been recovered from the crime scene. Moreover, he argues
that
he was not subjected to any forensic examination. Thus, he
concluded,
there was no trace of any independent, real and verifiable evidence
establishing
that he was the assailant.cralaw:red
Assuming arguendo that
he was the culprit, he further contends that the qualifying
circumstance
of treachery or evident premeditation cannot be established, because an
argument immediately preceded the stabbing.chanrobles virtual law library
We reject appellant’s
arguments. The assigned errors are essentially factual, the
resolution
of which are anchored on the credibility of witnesses.cralaw:red
A thorough review of
the records shows that there is no inconsistency in their
testimonies.
When asked on direct examination whether he had heard any exchange of
words
between appellant and the victim immediately prior to the stabbing
outside
Lomi Haus, Evangelista replied in the negative.[11]
On the other hand, the argument that he referred to on
cross-examination
had supposedly occurred inside the said establishment[12]
- before, but not immediately prior to, the stabbing.cralaw:red
Verily, the alleged
inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness refer to what he saw
and
heard on two separate incidents -- one occurring outside, and the other
inside, Lomi Haus; one immediately prior to, while the other
relatively
long before, the stabbing.cralaw:red
It may seem strange
that the victim, after being stabbed, kept on running without seeking
help
from his companion, Evangelista. This point, however, does not negate
the
fact that the latter witnessed the stabbing. The testimonies
yielded
no explanation as to why the victim kept on running, simply because no
inquiry regarding this circumstance was propounded during trial.
That the police did not interview his relatives or recover any bladed
weapon
from the crime scene is of no moment.cralaw:red
These alleged lapses
are not vital to establishing the guilt of appellant. They do not
show his innocence. The lower court, in its judicious exercise of
discretion, may fairly avail itself of the testimonial evidence
presented
in court, which in this case suffices to establish his culpability.chanrobles virtual law library
Though the testimonies
reveal nothing about the recovery of any weapon, it does not
necessarily
follow that none was used. Furthermore, members of the victim’s
family
were not the proper persons from whom to inquire about a weapon; and
the
hospital was not the proper place in which to search for it.
Common
sense dictates that under the circumstances, the inquiry should have
fallen
upon the investigating policemen or the witnesses to the crime.cralaw:red
The non-presentation
of a weapon in court was not essential to the prosecution’s case, since
the stabbing had been amply established by the testimonies of the
prosecution
witnesses. Moreover, the positive identification of appellant as
the assailant rendered superfluous any evidence of forensic examination
on the deceased. Thus, neither the fact of the stabbing or
appellant’s
guilt is weakened by appellant’s arguments.cralaw:red
Furthermore, the defense
already admitted during trial that a stab wound had indeed caused the
victim’s
death.[13]
Moreover, the Certificate of Death[14]
indicates that the immediate and the underlying causes of death were
cardio-respiratory
arrest and a stab wound, respectively.cralaw:red
On the other hand, although
Tumayao testified that there was a brownout in Isabela at the time of
the
incident, he nonetheless categorically stated that a light powered by a
generator illuminated the front of his house.[15]
Thus, he was able to recognize appellant and Domingo Saring as the same
persons who had earlier been illuminated by the lights of a police
patrol
car.[16]chanrobles virtual law library
To clarify, the lights
of a police car that was roaming the vicinity illuminated appellant and
his companion before, not after, the stabbing -- not while the latter
was
running away. This fact explains why the police car did not chase
appellant. It patrolled the vicinity sometime before the crime
took
place, not during or immediately after.cralaw:red
In view of the foregoing,
we find no cogent reason to disturb the trial court’s finding on the
witnesses’
credibility.cralaw:red
It is a well-settled
rule that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies
is best undertaken by trial judges, who have the unique opportunity to
observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor and conduct
on the witness stand. For this reason, their findings on such
matters,
absent any arbitrariness or oversight of facts or circumstances of
weight
and substance, are final and conclusive upon this Court and will not be
disturbed on appeal.[17]
Civil Liability
However, we find that
appellant’s civil liability needs modification. The amount of
P100,000
awarded by the trial court as actual and compensatory damages should be
reduced to P50,000, the amount of burial and wake expenses admitted by
the defense.[18]
In addition, the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity for the victim’s
death is hereby awarded.cralaw:red
Moreover, the award
of P500,000 as moral damages is excessive and must be modified.
Such
grant is not intended to enrich the victim’s heirs, but to compensate
them
for injured feelings.[19]
For this reason, current jurisprudence has set at P50,000[20]
the amount of moral damages in a murder case, absent any specific proof
to the contrary. Finally, the attendance of the qualifying
circumstance
of treachery warrants an award of exemplary damages in the amount of
P25,000.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the appeal
is hereby DENIED. The decision of the trial court convicting
Juanito
Pacuancuan of murder is AFFIRMED with the modification that he is
ordered
to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000 as actual damages, P50,000 as
civil
indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary
damages.
Costs against appellant.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Written by Judge Teodulo E. Mirasol.
[2]
RTC Decision, p. 3; rollo, p. 16; records, p. 151.
[3]
Signed by Provincial Prosecutor Anthony A. Foz.
[4]
Rollo, p. 6; records, p. 74.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
See Order dated February 3, 1999; records, p. 79. See also
Certificate
of Arraignment; records, p. 80.
[6]
Atty. Ferdinand E. Dalpig.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Appellee’s Brief, pp. 2-5; rollo, pp. 62-65; signed by Assistant
Solicitors
General Carlos N. Ortega and Karl B. Miranda and Solicitor Mauro A.
Elinzano.
[8]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 3-4; id., pp. 37-38; signed by Attorneys
Bartolome
P. Reus, Amelia C. Garchitorena and Tyrone L. Pedreña of the
Public
Attorney’s Office (PAO).
[9]
This case was deemed submitted for decision on February 22, 2002, upon
receipt by this Court of appellee’s Brief. Appellant’s Brief was
received by this Court on July 3, 2001. No reply brief was filed.
[10]
Appellant’s. 1; rollo, p. 35. Original in upper case.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
TSN, July 19, 1999, pp. 6-7.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
Id., p. 10.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
TSN, August 25, 1999, pp. 13-14.
[14]
Records, p. 11.
chan
robles virtual chan robles virtual law library law library
[15]
TSN, August 25, 1999, pp. 6 & 10.
[16]
TSN, August 25, 1999, p. 6.chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
People v. Magnabe Jr., GR No. 143071, August 6, 2002; People v. Obordo,
GR No. 139528, May 9, 2002; People v. Bertulfo, GR No. 143790, May 7,
2002;
People v. Pacantara, GR No. 140896, May 7, 2002.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
TSN, August 26, 1999, pp. 3-4.
[19]
People v. Verde, 302 SCRA 690, February 10, 1999.chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
People v. Ortiz, 361 SCRA 274, July 17, 2001; citing People v. Uldarico
Panalo et al., 348 SCRA 679, December 26, 2000. |