Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The prosecution, as can be observed, tried SEC. 11. Time of the commission of the
to convey to the court that the victim Maria offense. — It is not necessary to state in
Teresa Bernaldez ha[d] been repeatedly the complaint or information the precise
abused by the accused, her uncle and time at which the offense was committed
brother of his father, repeatedly for the past except when the time is a material
five (5) years the latest of which was on the ingredient of the offense, but the act may
faithful [sic] morning of August 29, be alleged to have been committed at any
1990. No evidence, however, was time as near to the actual date at which the
Presented by the Prosecution on how and offense was committed as the information
when Maria Teresa was abused the past or complaint will permit.
five (5) years except that of August 29, Indeed, we have ruled that the precise time of the
1990. 19 commission of the crime is not an essential element
and the dispositive portion of the decision, which of rape. 21
reads:
In this case, the allegation in the information of the not to constitute an error so serious as to warrant
time of the commission of the offense is specific, i.e., reversal of a conviction solely on that score. 23 The
"in the morning of 29 August 1990." RODOLFO failure of the complainant to state the exact date and
admits its sufficiency when he states: prcd time of the commission of rape is a minor matter and
can be expected when the witness is recounting the
A careful reading of the information clearly
show[s] that accused- appellant was details of a humiliating experience which are painful
charged of [sic] having committed the and difficult to recall in open court and in the presence
crime of rape on August 29, 1990, a of other people. 24 Moreover, the date of the
precise designation of the commission of commission of the rape is not an essential element of
the crime as determined by the Public the crime. 25
Prosecutor. The plain and clear meaning of
August 29, 1990, only embraces a period The ruling in U.S. v. Dichao 26 cited by RODOLFO is
of twenty four (24) hours when used with not applicable because the statement of the time of
respect to time. . . . the commission of the offense in the information
(between October 1910 to August 1912) was
In fact, at no time before the trial court did the defense indefinite and uncertain and was, therefore, held to be
question the sufficiency of the information. fatally defective because it deprived the accused of
Even granting arguendo that the prosecution failed to the opportunity to adequately prepare for his defense.
prove the allegation in the information that the rape
was committed "in the morning of August 29, 1990,"
any variance in the evidence as to the time the crime We now proceed to the central issue of this case:
was committed is insignificant, if not, irrelevant. whether RODOLFO is guilty of the crime charged.
Besides, the record fails to reveal that RODOLFO We reiterate these guiding principles in reviewing rape
objected to the testimony of MARIA TERESA as to the cases: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with
time of the commission of the crime. His counsel did facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the
not even object to the questions as to the number of person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in
times RODOLFO had been abusing MARIA view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where
TERESA. 22 only two persons are usually involved, the testimony
It is settled that even a variance of a few months of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme
between the time set out in the indictment and that caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must
established by the evidence during trial has been held stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed
to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence PROSECUTOR BIRATA:
for the defense. 27 What is decisive in a rape charge Q What happened?
is the complainant's positive identification of the
accused as the malefactor. 28 Bare denial and alibi Witness:
are insufficient to overcome the positive identification A He was removing my clothes.
made by the prosecution witness. 29
Q After he removed you clothes, what
In this case, MARIA TERESA, a 10-year-old Grade III happened?
pupil, 30 positively identified RODOLFO as the person
A He was inserting his penis to my vagina.
who raped her on 29 August 1990, 31 and who had
been sexually abusing her "many times" since she ATTY. ENCINAREAL: Objection, Your
was 5 years old. She testified as follows: Honor.
She affirmed the sworn statements which she gave to Against this story of MARIA TERESA, RODOLFO had
the police: nothing but alibi. For the defense of alibi to prosper,
the requirements of time and place must be strictly
PROSECUTOR BIRATA: met. It is not enough to prove that the accused was
Q Now I am going to read to you the somewhere else when the crime was committed; he
question and answer No. 8. "Kung must also demonstrate that it was physically
ikaw ba inaabuso ng iyong tiyuhin impossible for him to have been at the crime scene at
na si Rodolfo Bernaldez ano naman the time the crime was committed. 35
ang ginagawa sa iyo." Answer. "Ako
po ay kanyang binubuhat patungo Initially, there is some surface appeal on the proffered
sa itaas ng kanyang bahay at doon alibi because according to RODOLFO and his witness
niya ako hinuhubaran ng panti at Delfin Paular, he was out of his house the whole day
ako kanyang ipinapahihiga sa sahig of 29 August 1990, from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Also,
ng kanyang bahay at habang ako ay Melita Sasota testified that on the basis of her school
nakahiga siya naman ay binababa record, MARIA TERESA was in her class the whole
ang kanyang siper ng kanyang day of 29 August 1990. However, their testimonies
pantalon at inilalabas ang kanyang have not convincingly proved that MARIA TERESA
titi at dahandahan ito pinapasok sa never went to RODOLFO's house on 29 August 1990
akong kiki at doon ay humihindayog
and that it was physically impossible for RODOLFO to
na pababa at paitaas ang kanyang
poit hanggang sa doon mayroong have been in his house when the rape was committed.
lumalabas na mainit na galing sa Sasota admitted that she did not know where MARIA
kanyang titi." Do you remember TERESA went after the morning session, much less
having [been] asked that question after the dismissal of her class in the
and having [given] the same answer
afternoon. 36 Moreover, we entertain serious doubt as
to that question?
to the reliability of Sasota's record (Exhibit "2") and her further beating her for her refusal to go to RODOLFO's
testimony regarding MARIA TERESA's attendance house to borrow money is incredible. For one, it was
and presence in school throughout the whole day Of never shown that MARIA TERESA had been known
29 August 1990. First, Pedro Bernaldez declared that to be a liar or a disobedient child. If she refused to go
on that day MARIA TERESA did not go to school; she to the house of RODOLFO, it must have been for a
was in their house when he left for work and when he compelling reason. Her having been raped by him
came home. 37 Second, and more significantly, for 1 was, by any measure, an overwhelming compelling
March 1991, Sasota's school record of attendance did reason not to go to RODOLFO's house. For another,
not show that MARIA TERESA was absent or tardy it is unthinkable that MARIA TERESA, a girl of tender
on that day. Yet, on that date, MARIA TERESA was age, inexperienced in the ways of the world, would
in court and testified in the rape case. concoct a tale of defloration by no less than an uncle
just to avoid further beatings from her father.
Delfin Paular's testimony does not inspire belief
either. He admitted that he did not actually keep a MARIA TERESA's statements before the police and
record of the day-to-day list of personnel working for her testimony on the rape incident contained delicate
Mr. Cu because somebody was assigned to do it, and details which could be given by her alone and could
that he was only an "overseer." 38 He also revealed only be based on real experience rather than on
that RODOLFO was not in the list of personnel imagination. Surely, from the time she first disclosed
because he was only a substitute for his brother the rape, that is, in the morning of 30 August 1990,
Pedro Bernaldez, who was the one listed as until she gave her statements to the police on 2
employee of the rice mill. 39 Obviously, his testimony September 1990 and appeared before the municipal
was contrived for the alibi of RODOLFO. trial court judge, she had sufficient time to reflect on
the seriousness of the charge. Several months later,
Moreover, RODOLFO's house was only about 2 1/2
she affirmed in court the same allegations of rape. We
to 3 kilometers away from his place of work and could
cannot discern any plausible reason for her to falsely
be reached in 30 minutes by walking. 40 Thus, even if
accuse her uncle of so grave a wrong unless it was
indeed he went to work on 29 August 1990, it was not
the truth.
physically impossible for him to have been at his
house where the rape was committed. The prevailing rule is that the testimony of rape victims
who are young and immature deserves full
RODOLFO's belated theory that MARIA TERESA
credence. 41 Indeed, "no woman, especially of tender
fabricated the charge of rape to stop her father from
age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an
examination of her private parts, and thereafter given weight or credit unless the doctor who issued it
pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial if be presented in court to show his qualifications. Here,
she was not motivated solely by the desire to have the a distinction must be made between admissibility of
culprit apprehended and punished." 42 evidence and probative value thereof. Nevertheless,
a medical examination is not indispensable in a
Curiously, the alleged ill-motive on the part of MARIA
prosecution for rape. 47 The lone testimony of the
TERESA was not the motive RODOLFO disclosed in
victim is sufficient if credible.
his testimony What he told the court was that the case
was filed to stop him from revealing to the public the Finally, it was unnecessary for the trial court to
alleged incident showing that MARIA TERESA's consider the issue of force or intimidation. Since
mother had an illicit affair with her neighbor, a certain MARIA TERESA was undisputedly below 12 years old
Rodolfo. RODOLFO, however, abandoned this claim, on 29 August 1990, when the rape was committed,
for he must have realized that it was too incredible. then any carnal knowledge of her, even if consented,
Pedro Bernaldez would unlikely sacrifice the honor would be rape under the third paragraph of Article 335
and reputation of his family and the future of his young of the Revised Penal Code. Said article pertinently
daughter, and implicate his brother to whom he provides:
usually ran for economic support just to cover up the ART. 335. When and how rape is
alleged incident involving his wife. Neither would he committed. — Rape is committed by
use her daughter as an engine of malice, especially if having carnal knowledge of a woman
by doing so her daughter would be subjected to under any of the following
embarrassment and even life-long stigma. 43 Then, circumstances: cdrep
Record shows that the victim Jaime Baillo while hiding We do not agree. A police blotter is a book which
behind the hagonoy plant saw accused records criminal incidents reported to the police.
Belarmino Divina approach the dead body of his Entries in official records, as in this case of a police
mother Concepcion Baillo and uttered "PUSIL RAY blotter, are onlyprima facie evidence of the facts
TAMBAL SA MGA TESTIGOS SA CONTRA SA therein stated. They are not conclusive. 23 It is
MGA DIVINA" which means "ONLY THE GUN CAN undisputed that the alleged time of the commission of
the crime, i.e., 7:40 in the evening of June 17, 1988, reclusion perpetua, when the
was supplied only by the parish priest Fr. Badoy who evidence of guilt is strong."
was neither present when the shooting incident Pursuant to the aforecited provision, an
happened nor presented as a witness during the trial. accused who is charged with a capital
The information supplied is therefore hearsay and offense or an offense punishable by
does not have any probative value. reclusion perpetua, shall no longer be
entitled to bail as a matter of right even if
he appeals the case to this Court since his
With regards to G.R. Nos. 94073-74, We are conviction clearly imports that the evidence
constrained to deny accused Belarmino Divina's of his guilt of the offense charged is
petition for certiorari in line with this strong." (Emphasis Supplied.)
Court's Administrative Circular No. 2-92 dated Accused Belarmino Divina was convicted by the
January 20, 1992 "Re: Cancellation of Bail Bond of Regional Trial Court of the crime of murder which is
Accused Convicted of Capital Offense in the Regional an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua.
Trial Court," pertinent provisions of which are quoted Pursuant to SCAdministrative Circular No. 2-92, he is
hereunder: no longer entitled to bail even if he appeals to Us since
"The basic governing principle on the right his conviction clearly imports that the evidence of his
of the accused to bail is laid down in guilt is strong.
Section 3 of Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on We therefore find no reason to dwell on the issue
Criminal Procedure, as amended, which
raised in said petition.
provides:
"Sec. 3. Bail, a matter of WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
right; exception. — All persons in hereby rendered ACQUITTING accused MECRITO
custody shall before final conviction, BAGA of the crime of Murder in Criminal Case No.
be entitled to bail as a matter of 8342 and of Frustrated Murder in Criminal Case No.
right, except those charged with a 8362 for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt
capital offense or an offense which, beyond reasonable doubt. The convictions of accused
under the law at the time of its BELARMINO DIVINAin Criminal Cases Nos. 8342
commission and at the time of the and 8362 are AFFIRMED with the modification that he
application for bail, is punishable by be ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim
Concepcion Baillo in the amount of P50,000.00 in
consonance with prevailing jurisprudence.
The petition for certiorari filed by accused
BELARMINO DIVINA is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
(People v. Divina, G.R. Nos. 93808-09, 94073-74,
|||
[April 7, 1993])
[G.R. No. L-48727. September 30, 1982.] The Supreme Court held that the moral certainty or
degree of proof which produces conviction in our
PEOPLE OF THE unprejudiced mind has not been established by the
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- prosecution and the constitutional mandate that the
appellee, vs. JOSEPH LEONES y accused is presumed innocent must prevail.
DUCUSIN alias JESSIE, defendant- Judgement REVERSED and appellant is
appellant. ACQUITTED.
580 Rafael Lacson, CA 53 O.G. 1823; Francisco [September 30, 1982], 202 PHIL 703-714)
Salvador, CA 52 O.G. 7290; Lago, CA 45 O.G. 1356;
Barbo, 56 SCRA 459; Bay, 27 Phil. 495; Pantaleon
Ramos, 35 Phil. 671; Brocal, CA 36 O.G. 857;
Topacio, CA 36 O.G. 1358; Fernando Fausto, 51 Phil.
852; cited in Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 1977
Ed., Vol. III, pp. 1679-1680).
After carefully analyzing and weighing the evidence
presented by the prosecution in the light of the legal
principles above outlined and now well-established in
Our jurisprudence and guided by a little insight into
human nature, We are persuaded and convinced that
the guilt of the accused has not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt. That moral certainty or degree of
proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind (Rule 133, Section 2, Rules of Court) has not
been established by the prosecution. The
constitutional mandate that the accused is presumed
[G.R. No. L-32243. April 15, 1988.] the attack does not, of itself, suffice to support the
findings ofalevosia. There must be evidence that the
THE PEOPLE OF THE mode of attack was consciously adopted by the
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- appellant to make it impossible or hard for the person
appellee, vs. EUGENIO CRISOSTOMO, ac attacked to defend himself or retaliate.
cused-appellant. 4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUISITE MET IN CASE AT
BAR. — In the present case, the appellant admitted
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. that he had a previous altercation with the victim
wherein he was hit by the deceased with a bottle
Jose Ma. Abola for accused-appellant. because of certain differences they had in a billiard
hall although he claimed to have resumed friendly
SYLLABUS relations with the victim thereafter. Nevertheless, at
the time of the incident, the appellant went through the
motion of inviting the victim to join him in a drinking
1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; DEATH
spree which the victim declined and then suddenly,
CERTIFICATE; PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF
without any ceremony, he shot the victim while his
CAUSE OF DEATH. — In this jurisdiction such death
(the victim's) back was turned. The appellant used a
certificate and notes issued by said municipal health
gun, a lethal weapon to insure his design to kill the
officer in the regular performance of his duty are prima
victim. He fired at him at a short distance aiming at a
facie evidence of the cause of death of the victim.
vital spot of his body. The victim was unarmed. From
2. CRIMINAL LAW; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE; the environmental circumstances of the
TREACHERY; CONSTRUED. — There is treachery case, alevosia has been fully established.
when the offender commits any of the crimes against
5. ID.; ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE;
the person, employing means, method or forms in the
INTOXICATION. — Under Article 15 of the Revised
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
Penal Code, intoxication of the offender shall be taken
insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
into consideration as a mitigating circumstance when
from the defense which the offended party might
the offender committed a felony in a state of
make.
intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUDDENNESS OF ATTACK, NOT to the plan to commit said felony. Otherwise when
SUFFICIENT; REQUISITES. — The suddenness of
habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an of a friend. Romeo declined the offer. Suddenly
aggravating circumstance. Eugenio rushed towards Romeo who was then
standing near a store facing the street with his back
6. ID.; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE;
towards Eugenio and shot him with a .22 caliber
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER; REQUISITES. — The
revolver at a distance of one (1) meter. The bullet
requisites of voluntary surrender are: (a) that the of
entered about two (2) inches below the axilia (armpit)
fender had not actually been arrested; (b) that the
and came out on the right side of the chest about one
offender surrendered himself to a person in authority
(1) inch to the sternum. Romeo fell to the ground
or the latter's agent; and (e) that the surrender was
mortally wounded while Eugenio ran away. By-
voluntary.
standers who were near the place such as Delfin
7. ID.; ID.; VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILTY; Lopez, Ernesto Trillana, Apolonio Santos and Manuel
REQUISITES. — The requisites of the mitigating Tamayo and others who were all friends of both the
circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty are: (1) that victim and assailant came to the aid of the fallen victim
the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) and brought him to the Reyes Hospital at the
that the confession of guilt was made in open court, Poblacion of Hagonoy where the doctor pronounced
that is, before the competent court that is to try the the victim dead upon arrival. Thus, they brought the
case; and (3) that the confession of guilt was made victim's body to his home.
prior to the presentation of evidence for the
An information for murder was filed by the provincial
prosecution.
fiscal in the Court of First instance (CFI) of Bulacan
against Eugenio Crisostomo charging him of the
crime of murder as follows:
DECISION
"That on or about the 25th day of
December, 1967, in the municipality of
Hagonoy, province of Bulacan, Philippines,
GANCAYCO, J : p
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused
On Christmas day, December 25, 1967, between 6:00
Eugenio Crisostomo, armed with a firearm
and 7:00 o'clock in the evening at Sto. Rosario, and with intent to kill one Romeo Felipe
Hagonoy, Bulacan, while Eugenio Crisostomo was Geronimo, did then and there wilfully,
passing near the house of Romeo Geronimo, he met unlawfully and feloniously, with evident
the latter and invited him to have a drink in the place premeditation and treachery, attack,
assault and shoot the said Romeo Felipe Not satisfied therewith the accused now interposed
Geronimo with the firearms he was then this appeal alleging that the court committed the
provided, hitting the latter on the chest, following assigned errors:
causing serious physical injuries thereon,
which directly caused the death of the said "I
Romeo Felipe Geronimo." THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
After the arraignment wherein accused entered a plea FINDING THAT DEFENDANT-
of not guilty and again during the trial, the accused APPELLANT HAS ADMITTED HAVING
KILLED ROMEO GERONIMO, INSTEAD
signified his intention to withdraw his plea of not guilty
OF LIMITING ITS FINDING TO THE
to the charge of murder and to substitute it with a plea
TRUE EXTENT OF HIS ADMISSION.
of guilty to a lesser charge of homicide and prayed
that he be allowed to prove the mitigating II
circumstances. The same plea was made by the THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
accused after the prosecution had rested its case but FINDING THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE
the fiscal did not agree. Thus the court denied the BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT
petition.
LLphil DEFENDANT-APPELLANT KILLED
ROMEO GERONIMO. INSTEAD OF
A decision was rendered on March 28, 1969 FINDING THAT NO EVIDENCE HAD
convicting the accused of the offense charged, the BEEN PRESENTED AS TO THE ACTUAL
dispositive portion of which reads as follows: CAUSE OF DEATH. THERE HAVING
"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING BEEN NO AUTOPSY PERFORMED ON
CONSIDERATIONS, the court finds the THE BODY OF ROMEO GERONIMO.
accused EUGENIO CRISOSTOMO guilty III
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
MURDER, punished under Art. 248 of the THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
Revised Penal Code, without any FINDING THAT DEFENDANT-
modifying circumstance and hereby APPELLANT HAD ACTED WITH
sentences him to Reclusion Perpetua, with TREACHERY.
the accessories of the law; to indemnify the IV
heirs of the deceased in the sum of
TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT
(P12,000.00); and to pay the costs." FINDING THAT DEFENDANT-
APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE Testifying in his defense the appellant claims that at
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF the time of the incident when he saw the victim he
DRUNKENNESS. played a joke on him by drawing his gun from his waist
V and pointing the same to the victim but the gun
suddenly went off, its bullet hitting the victim. Taken
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT by surprise he fled.cdll
APPRECIATING IN FAVOR OF
APPELLANT THE MITIGATING No doubt from the said version of the appellant he
CIRCUMSTANCE OF VOLUNTARY effectively admitted having shot the victim Romeo
SURRENDER. Geronimo. In fact he fled from the scene of the crime
VI upon realizing the gravity of what he had committed.
It is clear that it was that single shot that felled the
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT victim which was the immediate cause of his death.
APPRECIATING DEFENDANT-
APPELLANT'S OFFER TO PLEAD Indeed, during the trial and as late as after the
GUILTY TO THE CHARGE OF HOMICIDE prosecution had rested its case, the appellant offered
(THE TRUE CRIME COMMITTED IF ONE to withdraw his plea of not guilty and substitute it with
HAD IN FACT BEEN COMMITTED) AS A a plea of guilty of the lessor offense of homicide but
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE. the prosecution refused to agree with his proposal.
VII Under the second assigned error the appellant claims
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT that as no autopsy was performed on the body of the
CREDITING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT victim the prosecution has not established the actual
WITH THE PRIVILEGED MITIGATING cause of death of the victim. He contends that the
CIRCUMSTANCE OF PRESENCE OF death certificate of the victim (Exhibit A) to which he
TWO ORDINARY MITIGATING offered no objection is admissible only to establish the
CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT THE fact of death not the cause of the death of the victim.
PRESENCE OF ANY AGGRAVATING
He further avers that the testimony of Dr. Juan Santos
CIRCUMSTANCE."
who examined the body of the victim but did not
Under the first assigned error appellant claims that the perform an autopsy shows that he did not qualify as
trial court erred in finding that he admitted having an expert witness; and even if he were an expert
killed the victim. witness there was no basis for him to render an
opinion as to the cause of death of the victim. Further, Santos emphasized that the left axilla wound is the
appellant alleges that Dr. Santos mentioned two (2) point of entry of the bullet while the right chest wound
wounds of different sizes but otherwise with exactly is its point of exit and that the said wounds were
identical characteristics from which the possibility may caused by one bullet. The trajectory of the bullet was
be deduced that the victim may have been shot twice, from the left axilla to the right chest. 4 The speculation
the second time by a person other than the appellant. of the appellant that the victim may have been shot
twice is thus totally without basis.
These arguments are devoid of merit.
The death certificate and the notes issued by Dr.
Dr. Santos, who was then the municipal health officer
Santos after his external examination of the body of
of Hagonoy, Bulacan, categorically testified that the
the victim establish the cause of death of the
cause of death of the deceased was a through and
deceased contrary to the contention of the
through gunshot wound which was caused by a
appellant. 5 In this jurisdiction such death certificate
bullet. 1 Although he may not be an expert witness, as
and notes issued by said municipal health officer in
a physician and health officer he is certainly qualified
the regular performance of his duty are prima
to give an opinion as to the cause of death of the
facie evidence of the cause of death of the victim. 6
victim. He externally examined the body of the
deceased on the same night of the incident and found Moreover, the said death certificate is not only
no other sign of external violence except the gunshot confirmed by the testimony of Dr. Santos and by two
wound. 2 Under such circumstances, one need not be (2) eyewitnesses Manuel Tamayo and Delfin Lopez
an expert to render an opinion that the said gunshot who stated that they saw the appellant rush at the
wound was the cause of death of the victim. victim and suddenly shoot him; that the victim fell
down after he was hit; and that they brought him to the
hospital but the doctor pronounced him dead on
Contrary to the contention of the appellant, Dr. Santos arrival. These two witnesses are mutual friends of
pointed out the difference between the two (2) wounds both the deceased and the appellant so that their
on the body of the victim in that the left axilla wound testimonies are free from any suspicion of bias or
was only 2.5 millimeters, while the right chest wound prejudice.
was 8 millimeters in diameter; that the former was
The appellant assails the findings of the court a
round while the latter was oval; and that the former
quo that he acted with treachery in the commission of
was deep while the latter was shallower. He denied
the offense as a third assigned error. He contends that
that the wounds were of identical appearance. 3 Dr.
while it may be true that he suddenly attacked the back was turned. The appellant used a gun, a lethal
victim, it does not appear that he had consciously weapon to insure his design to kill the victim. He fired
adopted the mode of attack intended to facilitate the at him at a short distance aiming at a vital spot of his
perpetuation of the offense without risk to himself. In body. The victim was unarmed. From the
fact appellant claims that he was drunk and as such environmental circumstances of the case, alevosia
he could not have reflected on the special means of has been fully established. 11
the execution of the act.cdrep
Under the fourth assigned error appellant alleges that
There is treachery when the offender commits any of he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
the crimes against the person, employing means, drunkenness. He asserts that he had been drinking
method or forms in the execution thereof which tend from one o'clock in the afternoon on that Christmas
directly and specially to insure its execution, without day and that he had been drunk five (5) times in his
risk to himself arising from the defense which the entire life so that it is not habitual.
offended party might make. 7
Under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code,
The suddenness of the attack does not, of itself, intoxication of the offender shall be taken into
suffice to support the findings of alevosia. 8 There consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the
must be evidence that the mode of attack was offender committed a felony in a state of intoxication,
consciously adopted by the appellant to make it if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan
impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend to commit said felony. Otherwise when habitual or
himself or retaliate. 9 intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
In the present case, the appellant admitted that he
had a previous altercation with the victim wherein he The allegation of the appellant that he was drunk
was hit by the deceased with a bottle because of when he committed the offense is self-serving and
certain differences they had in a billiard hall although uncorroborated. Besides, appellant admitted that at
he claimed to have resumed friendly relations with the that time he was only dizzy, 12 and that he was on the
victim thereafter. 10 Nevertheless, at the time of the way to another drinking spree. Obviously he had not
incident, the appellant went through the motion of drunk enough. He remembers the details of the
inviting the victim to join him in a drinking spree which shooting, the time it started and ended, how much
the victim declined and then suddenly, without any wine he imbibed and the persons who were with him.
ceremony, he shot the victim while his (the victim's) He realized the gravity of the offense he committed so
he fled and hid from the authorities. He sought before the competent court that is to try the case; and
sanctuary in the chapel of Sto. Rosario, boarded a (3) that the confession of guilt was made prior to the
tricycle going to the poblacion and took a La Mallorca presentation of evidence for the prosecution. 15
bus to Manila. All these are acts of a man whose
In the present case the appellant offered to enter a
mental capacity has not been impaired.
plea of guilty to the lesser offense of homicide only
As the fifth assigned error appellant argues that he after some evidence of the prosecution had been
should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of presented. He reiterated his offer after the prosecution
voluntary surrender stating that although he hid rested its case. This is certainly not mitigating. 16
himself from the authorities for ten (10) days, he
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the seventh
voluntarily surrendered to the authorities thereafter
assigned error where the appellant claims that he
upon the advice of his parents.
should be entitled to the privileged mitigating
The requisites of voluntary surrender are: (a) that the circumstance is consequently without merit.
of fender had not actually been arrested; (b) that the
The offense committed is the crime of murder as the
offender surrendered himself to a person in authority
killing was qualified by treachery. 17 Considering that
or the latter's agent; and (e) that the surrender was
the commission of the offense is attended by the
voluntary. 13
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender,
The testimony of the appellant is not disputed by the applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
prosecution that while in hiding, upon the advise of his appellant is hereby imposed the indeterminate penalty
parents, he voluntarily surrendered on January 4, of imprisonment of Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day
1968, so he was detained in the municipal jail of of prision mayor as minimum, to Seventeen (17)
Hagonoy. 14 The Court agrees that the appellant is Years, Four (4) Months, and One (1) Day of reclusion
entitled to this mitigating circumstance. However, he temporal as maximum. The indemnity for the death of
cannot be credited with the mitigating circumstance of the victim is increased to P30,000.00. cdll
UNDER SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE, The petitioners admit that the contradictory and
JUSTIFIES REVIEW OF ITS FINDINGS inconsistent statements attributed to Reyes and
ON ISSUES OF FACT AND Quinto have no direct bearing on the commission of
CREDIBILITY." (ROLLO, p. 165-166)
the crime. They argue, however, that the manner by
It is worthy of note that except for the question as to and the occasion in which the contradictory
the admissibility of the sworn statements taken during statements were uttered (Reyes' statements
the NBI investigation which comprised the direct regarding his age, place of birth, educational
testimony of Reyes and Quinto during the preliminary attainment, relationship with the victim and
investigation, as well as the admissibility of the rest of incarceration at the Bulacan provincial jail; Quinto's
the testimonies taken during the said proceeding, the statements regarding his previous criminal charges)
issues raised are factual. are such that they indicate the patent propensity on
the part of these claimed eyewitnesses to wilfully
It is a well-settled rule that findings of fact of the Court
falsify, prevaricate and perjure.
of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the
Supreme Court (Fernan v. Court of Appeals, 181 After a perusal of the testimonies of Reyes and
SCRA 546 [1990];De Ocsio v. Court of Appeals, 170 Quinto, this Court concludes otherwise. The
SCRA 729 [1989]) save only in certain instances, narrations are straightforward and consistent.
among them: Petitioners' insistence as to the improbability and
incredibility of Reyes' and Quinto's testimonies is
misplaced. There is nothing incredible in Reyes' At any rate, the Court of Appeals correctly observed
capacity to observe an incident at a distance of about that the inconsistencies and contradictions in the
ten (10) meters. There is no showing that Reyes declarations of Reyes and Quinto refer only to minor
suffers from any infirmity that would impair his vision. and collateral matters that do not impair the credibility
Isidro Ramos' testimony as to the impossibility for any of the sworn statements and testimonies. This Court
person in Reyes' location to witness the alleged has consistently held that minor inconsistencies in the
incident due to the fence which obstructs the view testimony of a witness do not affect his credibility as
could not be given much credence. In the first place, they refer only to collateral matters which do not touch
Ramos cannot be altogether regarded as a upon the commission of the crime itself (People v.
disinterested witness inasmuch as he is the brother- Arbolante, G.R. No. 96713, October 17,
in-law of Flavio de Leon's wife. Secondly, as between 1991; People v. Velasco, 175 SCRA 442
the statement of Reyes on his actual experience and [1989]; People v. Natipravat, 145 SCRA 483 [1986]).
the answer of Ramos to a hypothetical question, the
The petitioners next challenge the fact that Reyes and
former should definitely be given more weight
Quinto failed to report immediately what they claimed
inasmuch as it pertains to the specific incident in
to have witnessed. According to the petitioners,
question while the latter is a mere generalization
Reyes should have called the aid of the barrio
expressed by someone who even denied his
residents so that the victim could be rescued. Such
presence at the scene of the alleged incident.
action would have been too much of a demand on the
The petitioners, then, question Reyes' testimony witnesses who stated that they were gripped with fear
regarding the victim being whipped on the head with when they were confronted with the incident. It is not
a pistol. They stress the fact that in the certificate of uncommon for a witness who is afraid for his life not
post-mortem examination, there is no indication that to report to the police authorities what he has
the victim suffered from any wound or trauma on the witnessed. Such action should not detract from his
head and face area. Such discrepancy could be credibility (People v. Bustarde, 182 SCRA 554
explained by the fact that the victim's face and other [1990]; People v. Coronado, 145 SCRA 250 [1986]),
parts of his body were burned which indicates a plan Moreover, both witnesses explained that the group of
to make identification impossible. A complete men who accosted the victim included barrio
examination, then, of the corpse of the victim is policemen such that they were uncertain if going to
extremely difficult. the police was advisable. Quinto even thought that
Aguinaldo was arrested so he did not find it proper to
interfere. The foregoing reasons sufficiently explain Flavio de Leon which must have
Reyes' and Quinto's reaction to the incident. culminated in the death of Benjamin
Aguinaldo in the evening of March 2, 1970,
It is finally suggested by the petitioners that the this Court cannot close its eyes to the
testimonies of Reyes and Quinto should be totally principle that a person must not take the
rejected considering the witnesses' questionable law in his hand . . ." (Rollo, p. 43)
reputation and personal background as evidenced by
The issue as to the admissibility of the sworn
the previous criminal charges against them. Reyes
statements and testimonies of Reyes and Quinto
even died in an encounter with the authorities while
deserves scant consideration at this stage of the case
Quinto died in the custody of anti-carnapping
because this Court had already put the issue to rest
(ANCAR) agents at Camp Crame.
when it denied the petition for certiorari earlier filed by
A witness cannot be impeached by evidence of herein petitioners questioning the decision of the
particular wrongful acts; there must be a showing of Court of First Instance to admit the transcripts in
previous conviction by final judgment such that not question. By the express provision of Section 1 (f)
even the existence of a pending information may be Rule 115 of the Rules of Court, the testimonies given
shown to impeach him (People v. Arceo, 187 SCRA by witnesses during the preliminary investigation of
265 [1990]; citing Sec. 15, Rule 132 of the Rules of the case on trial should be admitted into evidence
Court). In the present case, Reyes and Quinto are not when such testimony was taken by question and
shown to have been previously convicted by final answer in the presence of defendant or his attorney,
judgment. Therefore, the facts established as to their and there was an opportunity for the defendant to
alleged illicit activities will not detract from their cross examine the witness "who is dead or
competence as witnesses. LLphil incapacitated to testify or cannot with due diligence be
found in the Philippines" (People v. Villaluz, 125
Moreover, as the Appellate Court has correctly
SCRA 116 [1983]).
observed:
xxx xxx xxx
"In this particular case, while both Ricardo On the defense of alibi, we quote with approval the
Reyes and Marcelino Quinto, Jr. may have lower court's ruling adopted by the appellate court
been shown to be persons of questionable insofar as petitioners Gregorio de Leon and Apolonio
repute and that they may have a hand in Santos are concerned, in the following manner:
the loss of the jeep of
xxx xxx xxx the evening of March 2, 1970. These
witnesses were subjected to cross-
"This Court finds that the evidence,
examination by counsel for the accused in
for the prosecution has sufficiently
the preliminary investigation and their
established the participation of these three
testimonies linking the three (3) accused
(3) accused in the abduction of Benjamin
with the death of Benjamin Aguinaldo
Aguinaldo in the evening of March 2, 1970
stood unrebutted and uncontradicted. The
and of having caused the liquidation of said
narration given by these witnesses at the
abducted person. Their claim of not
preliminary investigation was clear and
knowing Benjamin Aguinaldo or of having
devoid of any contradictions. There is no
heard of him except during the preliminary
showing that they were coached to give
investigation is too incredible to warrant
their separate testimonies before the
belief. Benjamin Aguinaldo was the driver
Provincial Fiscal or to give their sworn
of a PUJ jeepney owned and operated by
statements before the investigating officers
Isidro Ramos. The De Leons are also in
of the NBI. Their detailed narration of the
the transportation business while Santos is
circumstances that took place on the
a Barrio Policeman. All these people must
evening of March 2, 1970 could only come
have known each other in the community
from an eyewitness. These two (2)
especially those engaged in the same
distinctly and unerringly pointed to
business. The testimonies of Ricardo
accused Flavio de Leon,
Reyes and Marcelino Quinto, Jr. at the
Gregorio de Leon and Apolonio Santos as
preliminary investigation have established
among the group of persons who were in a
in such detail sufficient facts to link these
jeep and who took Benjamin Aguinaldo
three (3) accused, Flavio de Leon,
and brought him towards the dumping area
Gregorio de Leon and Apolonio Santos, to
of Wawa, Parañaque. Rizal, where the
the death of Benjamin Aguinaldo. Although
body of said Benjamin Aguinaldo was
Marcelino Quinto, Jr. and Ricardo Reyes
finally recovered the following morning.
may have been persons of unsavory
The alibis of these three (3) accused
reputation and had previously been
cannot stand in the light of this direct
implicated in robberies and carnapping,
testimonial evidence of the two (2)
nonetheless, there has been no showing
eyewitnesses." (Rollo, pp. 41-43)
that these two (2) witnesses had
prevaricated when they gave their version Additionally, Gregorio de Leon relied solely on his
of the abduction of Benjamin Aguinaldo in uncorroborated testimony which in the light of the
direct testimonies of Reyes and Quinto can only be be convicted on circumstantial evidence (People v.
viewed as self-serving statements. Apolonio Santos' Torre, 184 SCRA 525 [1990]).
alibi, on the other hand, although corroborated by the
This case was assigned to the Third Division fairly
former barrio captain and a member of the traffic
recently.
division of the Parañaque police force, should likewise
fail. It must be noted that the police blotter of the At this point, this Court would like to stress that it is
accident which Santos allegedly helped bring to the aware of the fact that the surviving petitioners have
attention of the authorities does not bear any advanced in age, the act complained of in the present
indication of his participation therein. Moreover, it is case having been perpetrated about twenty years
not shown that it was physically impossible for him to ago. At present, Apolonio Santos would be in his late
have participated in the crime considering that the seventies while Gregorio de Leon would be in his late
alleged accident happened in the same small barrio. forties. Be that as it may, this Court's duty to apply the
The foregoing circumstances strengthen the full force of the law shall not be compromised.
conclusion that Santos' testimony cannot prevail over However, it is precisely the province of the
that of Reyes and Quinto. prLL indeterminate sentence law to give considerations to
the personal circumstances of each convict. And after
Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that
a review of the sentence which the lower court has
alibi is a considerably weak defense which cannot
imposed, this Court is of the considered opinion that
prevail over the positive identification of the accused
the minimum and maximum periods imposed are still
(People v. Bugho, G.R. No. 91849, September 30,
applicable. This Court expresses its confidence that
1991; People v. Camarao, 188 SCRA 671
the authorities shall execute this Court's decision in a
[1990], People v. Repe, 175 SCRA 422
manner that shall consider the relative conditions of
[1989]; People v. Khan, 161 SCRA 406 [1988]).
each petitioner. prLL
physician of petitioner.
On 24 January 1989, petitioner's counsel filed an
The parties are in agreement as to the following facts: urgent omnibus motion to quash the subpoena and
Petitioner and private respondent are lawfully married suspend the proceedings pending resolution of the
to each other. motion.
On 25 November 1987, private respondent filed with Before Dr. Acampado took the witness stand on 25
Branch 53 of the Regional January 1989, the court heard this urgent motion.
Trial Court (RTC) of Pangasinan a petition for Movant argued that having seen and examined the
annulment of such marriage on the ground that petitioner in a professional capacity, Dr. Acampado is
petitioner has been allegedly suffering from a mental barred from testifying under the rule on the
illness called schizophrenia "before, during and after confidentiality of a physician-patient relationship.
the marriage and until the present." After the issues Counsel for private respondent contended, however,
were joined and the pre-trial was terminated, trial on that Dr. Acampado would be presented as an expert
the merits ensued. Private respondent presented witness and would not testify on any information
three (3) witnesses before taking the witness stand acquired while attending to the petitioner in a
himself to testify on his own behalf. On 11 January professional capacity. The trial court, per respondent
1989, private respondent's counsel announced that Judge, denied the motion and allowed the witness to
he would present as his next witness the Chief of the testify. Dr. Acampado thus took the witness stand,
Female Services of the National Mental Hospital, Dr. was qualified by counsel for private respondent as an
expert witness and was asked hypothetical questions
related to her field of expertise. She neither revealed On the witness box, Dr. Acampado
the illness she examined and treated the petitioner for answered routinary (sic) questions to
nor disclosed the results of her examination and the qualify her as an expert in psychiatry; she
medicines she had prescribed. was asked to render an opinion as to what
kind ofillness (sic) are stelazine tablets
Since petitioner's counsel insisted that the applied to; she was asked to render an
ruling of the court on the motion be reduced to writing, opinion on a (sic) hypothetical facts
respondent Judge issued the following Order on the respecting certain behaviours of a person;
same date: and finally she admitted she saw and
treated Nelly Lim but she never revealed
"In his omnibus motion filed with what illness she examined and treated her
the Court only yesterday, January 24, (sic); nor (sic) the result of her
1989, petitioner seeks to prevent Dr. Lydia examination of Nelly Lim, nor (sic) the
Acampado from testifying because she medicines she prescribed.
saw and examined
respondent Nelly Lim in her professional WHEREFORE, the omnibus motion dated
capacity perforce her testimony is covered January 19, 1989 is hereby DENIED." 1
by the privileged (sic) communication rule. On 3 March 1989, petitioner filed with the public
Petitioner contends that Dr. Acampado is respondent Court of Appeals a petition 2
being presented as an expert witness and for certiorari and prohibition, docketed therein as
that she will not testify on any information C.A.-G.R. SP No. 16991, to annul the aforesaid
she acquired in (sic) attending order of respondent Judge on the ground that the
to NellyLim in her professional capacity. same was issued with grave abuse of discretion
Based on the foregoing amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and to prohibit him
manifestation of counsel for petitioner, from proceeding with the reception of Dr. Acampado's
the Court denied the respondent's motion testimony. prcd