FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 110515. July 18, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VALENTIN MATIBAG y ALDAY and
WENCESLAO CASTILLO y ABITRIA, accused-appellants.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Manuel Alcala, Eligio Bautista, Wenceslao
Castillo, Dominador Ortiz and Valentin Matibag were charged with murder in an
Information[1] that reads:
"That on or
about November 8, 1990 at around 8:30 am at the Capistrano Village, Lucena City
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another and with the
aggravating circumstances of for a consideration of a price, reward or promise
and with advantage taken by the accused of their public positions and with the
use of a motor vehicle and with treachery and evident premeditation did there
and then wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot and kill Rufino Carlos with
the use of a firearm, a Colt .45 pistol automatic with Serial No.–81811 which
caused said Rufino Carlos’ instantaneous death, thus causing damage and
prejudice to the latter’s family and heirs."
Bautista, Castillo, Ortiz and Matibag
pleaded "not guilty" to the charge while Alcala remained at large.
The facts as culled from the records are as
follows:
In the morning of November 8, 1990, Atty.
Rufino Carlos was shot at close range while seated in his car parked outside
his house in Capistrano Subdivision, Lucena City. After the shooting, the
gunman simply walked away. Mrs. Amparo Carlos was seven (7) meters behind her
husband and saw everything that transpired. Atty. Rufino Carlos was brought to
the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival.
Pat. Noel Manga of the Lucena police, who
investigated the crime scene, recovered seven (7) empty shells beside the left
portion of the car and two (2) slugs inside the car. Dr. Vicente Martinez
autopsied the body of the victim and found seven (7) gunshot wounds, six (6) of
which were fatal. Per his findings,[2] Atty. Rufino Carlos died of hypovolemic shock
secondary to multiple gunshot wounds perforating the ascending aorta.
Apparently unsatisfied with the pace of the
investigation conducted by the Lucena police, the assistance of the National
Bureau of Investigation was sought. The then NBI Director, General Alfredo Lim,
assigned agents Burgos, de Guzman and Meneses to investigate the case. In the
course of his investigation, Burgos received information that the alleged
gunman was accused-appellant Valentin Matibag, an inmate at the Quezon
Provincial Jail. He also learned that a certain Edna Crisologo also witnessed
the shooting. After securing pictures of Matibag, Burgos showed them to Edna
Crisologo and Mrs. Carlos who both identified Matibag as the assailant. When
Matibag was placed in a police line-up, he was again positively identified as
the gunman by Edna Crisologo.
On March 18, 1991, the .45 caliber pistols
of Wenceslao Castillo, Conrado Nipales, Carlos Bautista, Serafin Lagrama,
Ronnie Menchero, Roberto Rama, Teodulo Ayag and Marianito Quisto, all personnel
of the Quezon Provincial Jail, were subjected to fire testing. The examination
of NBI Ballistician Ireneo Ordiano yielded the following results:
"Comparative
examinations made between the evidence bullets marked as "EB-1",
"EB-2", evidence shells marked "ES-1" to "ES-7"
and test bullets and test shells fired from the abovementioned firearms
revealed the following results:
a.....Evidence
bullets, caliber .45 marked "EB-1" and "EB-2" revealed
insufficient results. There are no sufficient individual characteristic
markings found on both the evidence bullets that could be used as basis for a
definite identification.
b.....Evidence
shells, caliber .45 marked "ES-1" to "ES-7" possess similar
individual characteristic markings with the test shells fired from UNKNOWN
(COLT) Automatic Pistol Caliber .45 SN – 81811 said evidence shells marked
"ES-1" to "ES-7" were fired from this particular
firearm."[3]
Notably, automatic pistol caliber .45 with
Serial Number 81811 was the firearm issued to Assistant Provincial Warden
Wenceslao Castillo.
Meanwhile, Matibag was brought to the NBI
office in Manila, where he narrated that he shot Atty. Rufino Carlos upon
orders of Provincial Jail Warden Eligio Bautista for a consideration of
P50,000.00. In the early morning of November 8, 1990, Matibag was allegedly
released from jail and brought near the house of his intended victim. He was
accompanied by Bautista, Nipales and Ortiz. When Atty. Carlos came out of the
gate of his house and boarded his car, Matibag casually walked near the car and
shot him at close range several times. Thereafter, he was brought back to the
Quezon Provincial Jail.
Having been implicated by Matibag, the
latter’s co-accused Bautista, Castillo, Nipales and Ortiz were invited to the
NBI office in Manila. Ortiz executed a sworn statement narrating that in the
afternoon of November 7, 1990, Manuel "Noli" Alcala, son of former
Quezon Governor Anacleto Alcala, handed over to Bautista a brown envelope
saying "Bahala ka na diyan, Eligio." At 6:00 p.m. that same day,
Bautista, Castillo, Nipales and Ortiz planned to liquidate Atty. Rufino Carlos.
They decided among themselves to use the firearm of Castillo as it was the most
reliable. The next morning, they took Matibag out from detention and positioned
themselves near the house of Atty. Rufino Carlos. When the latter came out of
the gate of his residence and entered his car, Matibag casually walked towards
him and shot him at close range. Ortiz received P5,000.00 for his
participation.
Nipales, on the other hand, died of heart
attack while in detention. Meanwhile, Manuel Alcala surrendered to the
authorities. Like the rest of his co-accused, he pleaded "not guilty"
to the charge. The prosecution did not present additional evidence against him.
Instead, it opted to rest its case. Matibag, Bautista, Castillo and Ortiz
denied the charge against them. Alcala did not take the witness stand at all.
Accused-appellant Matibag insisted that he
was coerced into making the statement before the NBI office in Manila. He
denied being assisted by Atty. Antonio Barranda when the statement was made.
Ortiz adopted the same line of defense. He declared he was tortured and coerced
into making the statement. Bautista completely denied any participation in the
killing. He claimed that he did not allow Matibag to be released from
detention. For himself, Castillo maintained that he never relinquished
possession of his firearm that fateful day of November 8, 1990.
Governor Eduardo T. Rodriguez testified for
the defense. He averred that when he visited Matibag at the NBI office in
Manila, the latter complained that he was coerced and tortured into signing a
statement. The defense likewise presented Nelson Pacia, a jail guard at the
Quezon Provincial Jail. He brought with him his "detail book" showing
that Matibag did not leave the jail premises on November 8, 1990.
Upon assessment of the evidence presented by
both parties, the trial court convicted Matibag and Castillo of murder.
Bautista, Ortiz and Alcala were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. The
decretal portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding
Valentin Matibag and Wenceslao Castillo y Abitria guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder defined and penalized under Art. 248 of the
Revised Penal Code and taking into account the provisions of Article 64 of the
same Code, and considering further the existence of the two aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation and that accused Wenceslao Castillo took
advantage of his position not offset by any mitigating circumstance, the Court
hereby sentences Valentin Matibag and Wenceslao Castillo y Abitria to reclusion
perpetua.
Each of the
accused is ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased Atty. Rufino Carlos the sum
of P50,000.00 as death indemnity.
The Court cannot
grant other damages as no evidence whatsoever was presented during the trial of
this case.
The prosecution
having failed to prove the guilt of accused Eligio Bautista, Dominador Ortiz
and Manuel Alcala beyond reasonable doubt, they are acquitted.
The bailbond of
accused Wenceslao Castillo y Abitria is cancelled and his confinement at the
Quezon Provincial Jail is hereby ordered.
It appearing that
accused Valentin Matibag is detained, he is credited with the full period of
his imprisonment pursuant to Republic Act 6127 approved on June 17, 1970
provided that he has complied with the terms and conditions of said law.[4]
Matibag and Castillo filed their separate
appeals. In his appeal, Castillo assigns the following as errors:
I.....It
was error for the trial court to have drawn and adopted the conclusion that the
lone and uncorroborated testimony of Mrs. Amparo Carlos, widow of the deceased
Atty. Rufino Carlos and alleged eyewitness to the commission of the offense was
direct, straightforward and sincere, instead of holding that the same was
patently incredible, untrustworthy and manifestly absurd or impossible.
II.....It
was error for the trial court to have drawn and adopted the conclusion that the
result of the comparative analysis made by Senior Ballistician Ireneo Ordiano
of the seven (7) shells and two (2) slugs allegedly recovered from the crime
scene was admissible, instead of holding that the same was grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises and conjectures.
III.....It
was error for the trial court to have drawn and adopted the conclusion that the
two (2) slugs marked as prosecution exhibits EB-1 and EB-2 are admissible to
prove that they were fired from the automatic .45 caliber pistol of
accused-appellant Wenceslao Castillo which allegedly killed the deceased,
instead of holding that the same was patently inadmissible, impertinent and
irrelevant inasmuch as the two (2) slugs recovered from the body of the
deceased by Dr. Vicente Martinez were never presented in court and deliberately
or intentionally suppressed by the prosecution for reasons only known to them.
IV.....It
was error for the trial court to have drawn and adopted the conclusion that
prosecution exhibits EB-1 and EB-2 (Evidence Bullets) are admissible, instead
of holding that the same were inadmissible, impertinent and irrelevant after
Senior Ballistician Ireneo Ordiano explicitly admitted in court that there are
no sufficient individual characteristic markings found on both the evidence
bullets that could be used as basis for a definite identification. (Exh. 00-1
to 00-3)
V.....The
trial court erred in not holding that the case against all the accused was
predicated on falsehood, fabrications or suppression of evidence perpetrated by
the NBI agents and police investigators who investigated the case at bar.
VI.....It
was error for the trial court to have drawn and adopted the conclusion that
there existed a conspiracy between the two accused-appellants in the murder of
Atty. Rufino Carlos.
VII.....It
was error for the trial court to have drawn and adopted the conclusion that
accused-appellant Wenceslao Castillo is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of
Atty. Rufino Carlos the sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity.
VIII.....The
trial court finally erred in not acquitting the accused-appellant Wenceslao
Castillo y Abitria.[5]
For his part, Matibag alleged that:
I.....The
trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of Amparo Carlos despite
the fact that there are glaring inconsistencies and unbelievable statements.
II.....The
lower court erred in the appreciation of the evidence presented by the
prosecution which, had this been properly perceived, would have led to the
acquittal of the appellants.
III.....The
lower court erred in giving consideration to an alleged statement of Edna
Crisologo Jacob who was not even presented as a witness.
IV.....The
lower court erred in concluding that there was conspiracy among the accused and
that there was evident premeditation despite the fact that there is no evidence
presented to prove conspiracy or evident premeditation.
V.....The
lower court erred in giving due consideration to hearsay evidence and making
conclusions based on the constitutionally inadmissible evidence.
VI.....The
lower court erred in convicting the accused on insufficient evidence.[6]
In sum, the errors assigned by
accused-appellants Matibag and Castillo may be consolidated and reduced into
the following:
I.....The
trial court erred in lending credence to the inconsistent and incredible
testimony of Mrs. Amparo Carlos;
II.....The
trial court erred in ruling that there was conspiracy among the accused and
that evident premeditation attended the commission of the crime.
III.....The
trial court erred in giving weight to the statements given by Edna Crisologo
Jacob as she was not presented on the witness stand.
IV.....The
trial court erred in the appreciation of the evidence particularly on the
findings of NBI Senior Ballistician Ordiano as the same was based on
speculations, surmises and conjectures.
These submissions are without merit.
The trial court committed no error in
lending credence to the testimony of Mrs. Amparo Carlos. The alleged
inconsistency as to the distance of Mrs. Carlos to her husband when the latter
was shot is definitely inconsequential. Whether the distance was four (4), five
(5) or seven (7) meters, the fact still remains that she was in the vicinity
and personally witnessed the crime when it was committed.
Likewise, the prosecution could not be
faulted for not presenting a certain Mrs. Mercado, the President of the
Homeowner’s Association and neighbor of the Carloses, whom Mrs. Carlos allegedly
saw after her husband was shot. The testimony of a single witness, if found to
be credible, trustworthy and straightforward would suffice to convict the
accused of the crime of which he was charged. The discretion still lies with
the prosecution as to the number of witnesses and whom to present on the
witness stand. For sure, the prosecution could not be accused of suppressing
vital evidence. The defense could have presented Mrs. Mercado as an adverse
witness if it so desired. Besides, it was not contrary to human nature for Mrs.
Carlos not to divulge to anybody, including the police authorities, the killing
of her husband immediately after he was shot. According to her, she became
hysterical upon seeing her husband bathed in blood. From the foregoing, this
Court finds no reason to doubt the testimony of Mrs. Carlos which the trial
court has assessed to be "direct, straightforward and sincere."[7]
This Court has sufficient reason to believe
that Assistant Provincial Warden Wenceslao Castillo participated in the
commission of the crime. The report of NBI Senior Ballistician Ordiano is
categorical that the bullets used to kill the victim were fired from an
automatic pistol .45 caliber with Serial No. 81811. It was established beyond
doubt that the subject pistol was issued to Castillo. The latter testified that
he never lost possession of his pistol on the day Rufino Carlos was killed.
Hence, the only logical conclusion from the foregoing disquisition would have
been that Castillo intentionally, voluntarily and temporarily relinquished
possession of his pistol to Matibag until after the latter accomplished his
mission.
Also, it is very apparent that the attack on
the victim was premeditated. The assailants waited in ambush outside the house
of their intended victim. They were there early in the morning just before
their victim was to leave for his office. Matibag waited until Rufino Carlos
was inside his car before he shot him several times.
No error was committed by the trial court in
giving weight to the findings of NBI Senior Ballistician Ordiano. The
contention that it was based on speculations, surmises and conjectures is a
sweeping conclusion bereft of any factual basis. On the contrary, Ordiano’s
findings consist of empirical data gathered after application of long-tested
scientific procedures. The defense could not even pinpoint a single and valid
defect in the procedures adopted by Ordiano.
On the other hand, this Court agrees with
accused-appellants that the trial court should not have considered the
extrajudicial statement of Edna Crisologo Jacob who was not placed on the
witness stand, thus, depriving the defense of its right to cross-examination.
The veracity of her statement not having been ascertained, it should not have
been given any probative value at all. Be that as it may, her testimony is
merely corroborative, and its exclusion will not affect the finding of guilt of
accused-appellants.
Incidentally, the trial court erred in
ordering each of the accused-appellants to pay P50,000.00 as death
indemnity. Under Article 110 of the Revised Penal Code, accused-appellants, as
principals to the crime, should be held jointly and severally liable for the
death indemnity. This means that any one of the accused-appellants may be held
liable for the full payment thereof without prejudice to the payor seeking
reimbursement from the other principal of his proportionate share.[8] In the instant case, Matibag or Castillo should be
held jointly and severally liable for the total amount of P50,000.00 as death
indemnity. Hence, both accused-appellants are only liable for P50,000.00 death
indemnity, and not P50,000.00 each or a total of P100,000.00 as held by the
trial court.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the judgment of the trial
court finding Valentin Matibag and Wenceslao Castillo GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder qualified by evident premeditation and sentencing
them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that both accused-appellants are ordered to pay jointly and
severally to the heirs of Atty. Rufino Carlos the sum of P50,000.00 as death
indemnity. Costs against accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno,
Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur.