FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
146696
July 3, 2003
-versus-
LEONILO PIDOY Y
LANGRIO,
Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Appellant Leonilo Pidoy
y Langrio was charged with Murder in an information[1]
which reads:
That on or
about the 5th day of April, 1997, in the Municipality of Victorias,
Province
of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bladed weapon,
with
evident premeditation and treachery and with intent to kill, did then
and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab
one
ROMEO SANTIA, thereby inflicting injuries upon the body of the latter
which
caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The information was
docketed
as Criminal Case No. 4035-69 of the Regional Trial Court of Silay City,
Negros Occidental, Branch 69. Appellant pleaded "not guilty" at
his
arraignment. Trial on the merits then ensued.
The prosecution alleged
that on April 5, 1997, the victim, Romeo Santia, was drinking tuba with
Pablo Brillantes and Rodito Barrientos at the Barrientos’ residence in
Hacienda Tison, Gawahon, Victorias, Negros Occidental. At 5:00
p.m.,
appellant Leonilo Pidoy arrived and joined the three. He was drunk. The
three offered appellant a glass of tuba but he refused. Instead, he
argued
with Santia about their work. Their argument became heated and when
appellant
approached Santia, they grappled, exchanged blows and wrestled at the
stairs.
After about two minutes, Rodito Brillantes was able to break up the
fight.
Pablo Brillantes’ mother-in-law led appellant to the side of the rice
field
while Santia remained and sat beside Pablo Brillantes at the front yard
of the house.cralaw:red
After a short while,
appellant returned holding a combat bolo, locally known as ginunting,
and
repeatedly stabbed Santia on the chest and other parts of the body. He
then uttered, "that is enough", and fled. Santia died as a result of
his
wounds.cralaw:red
Dr. Jerry A. Pahantang,
Municipal Health Officer of Victorias, Negros Occidental, who conducted
the autopsy, found that Santia sustained four stab wounds and that the
proximate cause of death was hypovolemic shock secondary to massive
hemorrhage
due to multiple stab wounds.[2]chanrobles virtual law library
The defense denied the
prosecution’s allegations. Dominador Ortiz claimed that in the
afternoon
of April 5, 1997, he accompanied appellant to the latter’s house to
change
clothes. He noticed several persons having a drinking spree. One of
them,
a big man, offered appellant a drink but he refused as it was against
his
religion. The big man asked appellant for some money, but the latter
replied
that he had not received his salary. This angered the big man,
who
then poured liquor on appellant’s head, pushed and kicked him. The
others
ganged up on appellant until he fell to the ground. Then, an
unidentified
person arrived holding a bolo and stabbed the big man. After the melee,
the big man was left lying on the ground while appellant was holding a
bolo. Dominador and appellant then fled.cralaw:red
The trial court gave
credence to the prosecution’s evidence and rendered a decision,[3]
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE,
PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court finds the accused, Leonilo Pidoy y
Langrio,
Guilty of the crime of Murder, as defined in Art. 248 of the Revised
Penal
Code of the Philippines, as amended, attended by the qualifying
circumstance
of Treachery, as his guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, this
Court,
sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, the same to
be served by him at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa, Rizal.
Accused, Leonilo
Pidoy
is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of the late Romeo Santia the
sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS as moral and exemplary damages, and to pay
the cost of this suit.chanrobles virtual law library
Accused, Leonilo Pidoy,
shall, in the service of his sentence, be given full credit for the
entire
period of his detention pending trial.
Hence, this appeal based
on the foregoing arguments:
I
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED
IN FINDING THAT TREACHERY WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE PROSECUTION;
II
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED
IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FATAL WEAKNESS OF THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION
WITNESS
PABLO BRILLANTES IN TERMS OF IMPROBABILITIES, GROSS INCONSISTENCIES AND
IRRECONCILABLE CONTRADICTIONS;
III
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED
IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE VICTIM’S DEATH WAS CAUSED IN A TUMULTUOUS
AFFRAY
AS DEFINED UNDER ARTICLE 251 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE; AND
IV
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED
IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTION
TO PRESENT VITAL CORROBORATIVE EYEWITNESSES NAMED BY ITS LONE STAR
WITNESS.[4]
Appellant generally
assails the trial court’s findings of fact which were based mostly on
the
testimony of lone prosecution witness Pablo Brillantes. We see no
reason
to depart from the well-entrenched doctrine that findings of facts of
the
trial court are accorded due respect and weight unless it has
overlooked
material and relevant points that would have led it to rule otherwise.
The time-honored rule is that the matter of assigning values to
declarations
on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the
trial
judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in
light
of the declarant’s demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is
thereby
placed in a more competent position to discriminate between truth and
falsehood.
Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it,
accorded
by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be
clearly
shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily
the
facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[5]
In the assessment of
evidence, much depends on the credibility, not only of witnesses, but
also
of the testimonies themselves. In assessing the defense’s testimonial
evidence,
the trial court observed, thus:chanrobles virtual law library
This Court notes, with
keen interest, that the participants of this submitted incident, other
than accused himself, Leonilo Pidoy, were without appellations. They
were
not identified. These loose statements of unsubstantiated assertions,
insusceptible
of reasonable verification, lacking in requisite and pertinent details,
inevitably led to a reasonable conclusion that what is laid by the
defense
before this Court is a poorly-crafted, concocted narrative of events
and
personalities which never took place nor existed. Testimony to be
believed,
must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must
be credible as logic dictates clearly. Defense’s stand miserably fails
to measure up to this standard.[6]
Appellant’s submission,
therefore, that Santia’s death was the result of a tumultuous affray is
a futile and belated attempt to explain the circumstances of his death.
Curiously, appellant himself did not take the witness stand to give
substance
to his defense like identifying the perpetrator or perpetrators or even
naming some of the participants in the alleged tumultuous affray.cralaw:red
Even then, the lack
of credibility of the defense’s testimonial evidence was not the basis
of appellant’s conviction but rather the credibility of main
prosecution
eyewitness Pablo Brillantes. The trial court observed that:
A candid, straightforward,
and direct account of this incident was given by prosecution witness,
Pablo
Brillantes, whose testimony was corroborated on material points by the
injuries sustained by Romeo Santia (Exhibit "A" - prosecution), and the
testimony on the same given by Dr. Jerry A. Pahamtang.[7]
Pablo Brillantes steadfastly
pointed to appellant as the one who stabbed Santia with a combat bolo.
He was sure of appellant’s identity as he had known him for two years.[8]
The crime scene was also illuminated by a wick lamp.[9]
Experience dictates that, precisely because of the unusual acts of
violence
committed right before their eyes, eyewitnesses can remember with a
high
degree of reliability the identity of the criminals at any given time.
Hence, the proximity and attention afforded the witnesses, coupled with
the relative illumination of the surrounding area, bolsters the
credibility
of identification of the appellant.[10]chanrobles virtual law library
Significantly, the defense
did not dispute the presence of Pablo Brillantes at the crime scene.
All
the defense could say was that it was not appellant who stabbed Santia.cralaw:red
Moreover, the defense
could not point to any ill motive on the part of Pablo Brillantes for
identifying
appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. When there is no evidence to
indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution was moved by an
improper motive, the presumption is that such motive was absent, and
that
the witness’ testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. Between
appellant’s
denial and the witness’ positive testimony, there is no doubt that the
latter is entitled to credence.[11]
The credibility of Pablo
Brillantes’ account was further enhanced by its corroboration on
material
points by Dr. Pahamtang. Contrary to the defense’s contention, there
was,
in this case, no need for the prosecution to present corroborative
eyewitnesses.
One eyewitness is sufficient to convict as long as he is found to be
credible
and without any ill-motive to testify against appellant as in this case.cralaw:red
In any event, the prosecution
has the exclusive prerogative to determine whom to present as
witnesses.
The prosecution need not present each and every witness but only such
as
may be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to establish the
guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the other
witnesses
may, therefore, be dispensed with if they are merely corroborative in
nature.
We have ruled that the non-presentation of corroborative witnesses does
not constitute suppression of evidence and is not fatal to the
prosecution’s
case.[12]
Neither are the alleged
inconsistencies and improbabilities cited by appellant fatal to the
prosecution’s
case. More specifically, appellant argues that while Pablo Brillantes
testified
during his direct examination that appellant arrived drunk at the place
of the incident at about 5:00 p.m.,[13]
he stated on cross-examination that appellant arrived at 5:40 p.m.[14]
The inconsistency is
more apparent than real. In his direct examination, Pablo Brillantes
estimated
the time of appellant’s arrival "at about 5:00 in the afternoon."[15]
He did not say that appellant arrived at exactly 5:00 in the afternoon.
It has been held that an error in the estimation of time is too
immaterial
to discredit the testimony of a witness, especially when time is not an
essential element or has no substantial bearing on the fact of the
commission
of the offense.[16]
This is a minor and insignificant detail that will not affect the
finding
that appellant perpetrated the crime.cralaw:red
Furthermore, inconsistencies
in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to minor and insignificant
details do not destroy their credibility. Such minor inconsistencies
even
manifest truthfulness and candor and erase any suspicion that the
testimony
was rehearsed.[17]
Appellant likewise claims
that it is unbelievable for him to be drunk during that time because,
as
a member of the Iglesia ni Cristo, he is "disciplined not to drink any
wine."[18]
Besides, there was no evidence that he was drunk. Appellant’s claim,
aside
from being self-serving, is non-sequitur. Moreover, his intoxication is
a non-issue in this case.cralaw:red
Appellant also branded
as incredible and unbelievable Pablo Brillantes’ testimony that it was
he who challenged Santia to a fistfight, saying that he could not have
done that considering that Santia was of larger built. This, again, is
non-sequitur.chanrobles virtual law library
Finally, appellant assails
the trial court’s finding of treachery, alleging that the elements
thereof
were not present in this case.cralaw:red
There is treachery when
the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing
means,
methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
especially
to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any
defense
which the offended party might make. For treachery to be appreciated,
the
prosecution must prove: (a) that at the time of the attack, the victim
was not in a position to defend himself, and (b) that the offender
consciously
adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[19]
Appellant claims that
the wrestling and the stabbing incident were continuous such that there
was no lapse of time during which Santia may have relaxed his guard and
failed to foresee appellant’s next move. Furthermore, assuming that he
did stab Santia, it was an instinctive reaction on his part to protect
himself and get hold of the bolo, which was the only available weapon
at
that time. In other words, he did not deliberately and consciously use
the said weapon to stab the victim. Finally, he argues that since the
attack
was frontal, there was no treachery.cralaw:red
The essence of treachery
is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and
unsuspecting
victim no chance to resist or to escape.[20]
Treachery may be committed even if the attack is frontal, but no less
sudden
and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or offer
any
defense to his person.[21]
Treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned
of the danger to his person. What is decisive is that the execution of
the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to
retaliate.[22]
Pablo Brillantes testified
that the wrestling incident occurred at 7:30 p.m.[23]
The crowd broke up the fight and appellant was led away to the side of
the ricefield while Santia stayed and sat at the front yard. At 8:00
p.m.,
appellant returned and stabbed Santia in the chest with a bolo.[24]
There was, therefore, an appreciable lapse of time from the first
encounter
between appellant and Santia to the stabbing incident. Nevertheless,
Santia
was taken unaware by the turn of events when appellant suddenly
appeared
in front of him and, before he could instinctively react to protect
himself,
stabbed him. The fact that Santia was sitting down[25]
and presumably inebriated indicates that he had let his guard down.
Significantly,
he was unarmed when he was stabbed. From all indications, the attack on
Santia was treacherous.chanrobles virtual law library
Therefore, appellant
was guilty of Murder, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua to
death.[26]
There being no other mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the
lesser
of the two indivisible penalties shall be imposed.[27]
The trial court failed
to award civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim. Article 2206 of
the
Civil Code provides that when death occurs as a result of a crime, the
heirs of the deceased are entitled to be indemnified, without need of
any
proof thereof.[28]
Hence, the trial court should have awarded civil indemnity in the
amount
of P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[29]
The trial court also
erred when it awarded the amount of P50,000.00 as moral and exemplary
damages
without indicating what amount constitutes moral damages and exemplary
damages.cralaw:red
The award of P50,000.00
by the trial court should be deemed as moral damages, which are awarded
without need of further proof and in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[30]
It is awarded for the anguish suffered by the victim’s wife because of
the victim’s death. In addition, exemplary damages must also be awarded
considering the attendance of treachery which qualified the killing to
Murder. Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages as part
of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with
one or more aggravating circumstances. The term aggravating
circumstances
as used therein is to be understood in its broad or generic sense since
the law did not specify otherwise. The ordinary qualifying nature of an
aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of
consequence
to the criminal, rather than to the civil liability of the offender.[31]
Thus, the heirs of the victim are entitled to exemplary damages in the
amount of P25,000.00.[32]chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, in view of
all the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Silay
City,
Branch 69, in Criminal Case No. 4035-69, finding appellant Leonilo
Pidoy
y Langrio GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and
sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION
that appellant is ORDERED to pay the heirs of the victim Romeo Santia,
the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral
damages
and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.cralaw:red
Costs de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Records, p. 1.
[2]
Exhibit "A", Records, p. 65.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Penned by Judge Felipe G. Banzon of the Regional Trial Court of Negros
Occidental, Branch 69, Silay City.
[4]
Rollo, p. 40.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
People v. Piedad, G.R. No. 131923, 5 December 2002.
[6]
Records, p. 104.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
TSN, December 16, 1997, p. 7.
[9]
Ibid., p. 8.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
People v. Piedad, supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
People v. Andarme, G.R. No. 140426, 30 July 2002.
[12]
People v. Bulfango, G.R. No. 138647, 27 September 2002.
[13]
TSN, December 16, 1997, p. 4.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
TSN, February 18, 1998, p. 10.
[15]
TSN, December 16, 1997, p. 4.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
People v. Baniega, G.R. No. 139578, 15 February 2002.
[17]
People v. Villegas, G.R. No. 138782, 27 September 2002.
[18]
Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 52.chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
People v. Piedad, supra.
[20]
People v. Piedad, supra.
[21]
People v. Villegas, supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[22]
People v. Nasayao, G.R. No. 141237, 17 September 2002.
[23]
TSN, February 18, 1998, p. 11.chanrobles virtual law library
[24]
Ibid., p. 10.chanrobles virtual law library
[25]
TSN, December 16, 1997, p. 6.
[26]
Revised Penal Code, Art. 248.
[27]
Revised Penal Code, Art. 63(2).
[28]
People v. Villegas, supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[29]
People v. Peña, G.R. No. 133964, 13 February 2002.
[30]
People v. Acosta, G.R. No. 140402, 28 January 2003.chanrobles virtual law library
[31]
People v. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, 23 August 2001, 363 SCRA 621, 635.
[32]
People v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 137702, 1 April 2003.chanrobles virtual law library |