SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 111292. July 20, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINADOR
GUILLERMO, RODOLFO DELA CRUZ, ROMULO DELA CRUZ, JOHN DOE, PETER DOE, JAMES DOE
and RICHARD DOE, accused-appellants.
D E C I S I O N
BUENA, J.:
Before us on
automatic review is the case for murder arising from the senseless killing of
one Samson Cristobal. The dispositive portion of the decision dated June 22,
1993 of the Regional Trial Court, 2nd Judicial Region Branch 32, Cabarroguis,
Province of Quirino in Criminal Case No. 847 is as follows:
"WHEREFORE,
the judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Dominador Guillermo,
Rodolfo dela Cruz, and Romulo dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code qualified by treachery convicting each of the accused to suffer reclusion
perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided by law and to indemnify the
heirs of the victim Sammy Cristobal in the amount of Fifty Thousand (Php
50,000.00) Pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The
detention of the accused is hereby fully credited in their favor in accordance
with Article 29, of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 2167.
SO ORDERED."[1]
The antecedents
upon which the decision under review was based are as follows:
On January 9, 1991
at about 9:00 o’ clock in the evening at Manglad, Maddela, Quirino Province, a
drinking spree was held at the house of Jerry Cristobal in celebration of his
son’s birthday.[2] Among the visitors who attended the affair were the
deceased Samson Cristobal, Renato Marquez, and accused-appellants Rodolfo dela
Cruz and Dominador Guillermo.[3]
During the affair,
Renato Marquez and Samson Cristobal had an altercation.[4] Renato boxed Samson on the face.[5] In turn, Samson took hold of Renato’s hand and they
grappled.[6] This prompted Renato to ask accused-appellant
Dominador Guillermo for help.[7] Accused-appellant Dominador ran to the succor of
Renato and stabbed Samson.[8] Accused-appellant Rodolfo dela Cruz also joined the
fray by throwing a gas lamp and hitting Samson with a guitar.[9] Thereafter, the group dispersed.[10] Then came accused-appellant Romulo dela Cruz looking
for Renato and threatening to kill the Cristobals if they do not bring out
Renato. Teresita Cristobal prevailed upon accused-appellant Romulo and said
that Renato had already left for home.[11]
Brandishing clubs
and bladed weapons, Romulo dela Cruz, together with the other
accused-appellants, roamed around Jerry Cristobal’s house.[12] Thus, Jerry waited for the accused-appellants to
leave before deciding to bring Samson to the hospital and have the latter’s
profusely bleeding leg treated.[13] On their way, about five meters from Jerry’s house,
Jerry went back to get a flashlight leaving Joel and Samson by the road.[14]
On the road, Joel
and Samson were met by accused-appellants Dominador Guillermo, Rodolfo dela
Cruz and Romulo dela Cruz.[15] Upon seeing the group, Samson advised Joel to run
for safety.[16] Joel heeded the advice and ran for cover behind some
guava trees.[17] After losing sight of Joel, Renato and the
accused-appellants went back for Samson. Renato was the first to stab Samson
followed by accused-appellants Rodolfo and Romulo dela Cruz.[18] Accused-appellant Dominador Guillermo clubbed Samson
after Renato stabbed him.[19] From his hiding place, Joel was able to witness the
incident with the illumination from the flashlights of the accused-appellants.[20]
After the incident,
Joel went home and reported the matter to his mother and to his brother Jerry.[21] Joel, together with Jerry, went to the place where
Samson was attacked but failed to find the latter.[22] Samson’s body was seen floating in the Cagayan River
three days thereafter.[23]
On March 13, 1991,
Renato Marquez together with accused-appellants Dominador Guillermo, Rodolfo
dela Cruz and Romulo dela Cruz and four (4) John Does were charged with Murder
before the court a quo in an information which reads:
"That on or
about 9:00 o’clock in the evening of January 9, 1991, in barangay Manglad,
Municipality of Maddela, Province of Quirino, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, treachery
and evident premeditation, and armed with sharp bladed and pointed instruments
and pieces of wood, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
stab, hack assault and maul, Samson Cristobal, hitting the latter to the
different parts of his body which caused his instantaneous death.
"That the
following aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime of
murder to wit:
"1.....That
the accused took advantage of the superior strength; and
"2.....That
the accused took advantage of the darkness to insure impunity and facilitate
the commission of their heinous deed;
CONTRARY TO
LAW."[24]
While
accused-appellants Dominador Guillermo, Rodolfo dela Cruz and Romulo dela Cruz
were at-large, trial proceeded against Renato Marquez.[25] In its decision, dated August 8, 1991, the court a
quo acquitted Renato Marquez.[26] Thereafter, the three accused-appellants were
apprehended and the case against them revived.[27]
Upon arraignment on
October 29, 1992, accused-appellants Dominador Guillermo, Romulo dela Cruz and
Rodolfo dela Cruz entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged.[28]
In disclaiming
liability, accused-appellants denied the offense charged and interposed their
respective alibi. Dominador Guillermo claimed that he was in his house at the
time of the incident.[29] Rodolfo dela Cruz claimed that he assisted Renato
Marquez to the hospital and stayed there the whole night.[30] On the other hand, Romulo dela Cruz insisted that he
was in their house that fateful night.[31]
After trial on the
merits, accused-appellants were found guilty as charged and were sentenced
accordingly. Separate appeals were filed by Dominador Guillermo and the Dela
Cruz’ brothers, thus:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
(Accused-appellant Dominador Guillermo)
"-I-
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ‘THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION HAS OVERCOME THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND ESTABLISHED THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED DOMINADOR GUILLERMO BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
"-II-
THE LOWER COURT’S
FACTUAL FINDING OF TREACHERY IS DEVOID OF EVIDENTIARY BASIS, AND IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE. IT THUS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE
CHARGE OF MURDER AS DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER ARTICLE 248 OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE AVERRED QUALIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES OF TREACHERY AND EVIDENT PREMEDITATION.
"-III-
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS CONSPIRACY AMONG THE ACCUSED IN THE COMMISSION
OF THE ALLEGED CRIME DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE."[32]
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
(Accused-appellants Romulo and Rodolfo dela Cruz)
"-I-
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE TESTIMONY OF THE ALLEGED EYE-WITNESS JOEL CRISTOBAL
WHICH IS PALPABLY INCREDIBLE AND COULD NOT EVEN PASS THE TEST OF REASON.
"-II-
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS RODOLFO DELA CRUZ AND ROMULO DELA
CRUZ DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT."[33]
In essence, the
appeal of Dominador Guillermo on one hand, and Romulo and Rodolfo dela Cruz on
the other, are anchored on the credibility of the lone prosecution eyewitness
Joel Cristobal. Since Joel’s testimony will determine the outcome of this case,
the same is challenged in Guillermo’s first assigned error, and the dela
Cruzes’ first and second assigned errors.
We find for
accused-appellants.
Joel’s testimony is
indeed self-contradictory. The more glaring inconsistencies that we cannot
simply overlook are set below.
At the start of
Joel’s cross examination, he testified that he was not yet sleeping when the
altercation between accused-appellant Dominador Guillermo and the deceased
Samson Cristobal started, [34] and that he already knew that Samson was stabbed
before he went to sleep.[35] In fact, he saw how accused-appellant Dominador
Guillermo stab Samson.[36] Towards the end of his cross examination however,
Joel changed his story and claimed that he was already sleeping when the first
incident happened.[37] This shows the unreliability of the first witness.
He cannot even decide whether or not he was awake during the first incident.
The lapse in memory, when it comes to things the witness ought to know,
instills disbelief.[38]
On direct
examination, Joel said that while he was sleeping in his own house he was
awakened by his brother Jerry Cristobal in order to bring the wounded Samson
Cristobal to the hospital.[39] Under cross examination, however, Joel testified
that he was then sleeping in his brother Jerry’s house.[40] Again the unreliability of the witness is manifested
here, casting serious doubts on his credibility.
Next, Joel narrated
that he only slept for an hour after the first incident,[41] and yet he subsequently testified that he slept from
7:30 pm to 10:00 pm that fateful evening.[42] While the discrepancy as regards time is often
disregarded, we cannot do so in this case for the fatal incident purportedly
happened at around 9:00 pm – clearly within the time Joel was allegedly asleep.
Aside from being
self-contradictory, Joel’s testimony does not also jibe with the testimonies of
the other prosecution witnesses. According to Joel, Samson’s body was fished
out from the Cagayan River the day after the incident.[43] After further inquiry, he clarified that they saw
Samson’s body on January 10, 1991.[44] On the other hand, Jerry Cristobal disclosed that
they were able to recover Samson’s body only after three (3) days from the day
of the incident,[45] and their mother Teresita Cristobal said that they
saw Samson’s body after two (2) days.[46]
Finally, Joel’s
account of the second incident – the fatal assault on Samson Cristobal – is
likewise unconvincing. In his narration, it appears that the alleged
assailants, herein accused-appellants, attacked the deceased in succession.
They allegedly hit Samson one after the other.[47] No details were offered to show how the assailants
helped one another in the assault. Neither was it shown that the attack was
treacherous. Moreover, there was no account of how the deceased tried to fend
off his attackers. Indeed, the picture is incomplete.
Since the
above-mentioned inconsistencies are neither trivial nor inconsequential, these
are more than enough to engender some doubt as to the guilt of the
accused-appellants. Lest we forget, "the onus probandi in
establishing the guilt of an accused for a criminal offense lies with the
prosecution. The burden must be discharged by it on the strength of its own
evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense or the lack of
it. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to
produce a moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of
those who are to act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence."[48]
Stated otherwise,
"the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the
innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his
guilt."[49]
With this in mind,
we are not bound to believe the court a quo’s appraisal of the
prosecution’s lone eyewitness especially where his testimony defies human
experience.[50]
Consequently,
discussion of the second and the third assigned errors of accused-appellant
Dominador Guillermo is no longer necessary. With the prosecution’s failure to
discharge the burden of proof, the accused-appellants should be set free, and
this Court is constitutionally bound to acquit them.[51]
While the killing
is deplorable, especially the manner in which it was done, the
accused-appellants should not be loosely persecuted and condemned in the
absence of the required quantum of proof.
"Admittedly,
if a life is taken, justice demands that the wrong be redressed, but this same
justice that calls for retribution cannot be the same one that would convict
the accused-appellant at bar whose guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable
doubt. The burden of proof rests upon the prosecution and unless the State
succeeds in proving his guilt, the presumption of innocence in favor of the
accused-appellant applies. The conscience must be satisfied that on the
accused-appellant could be laid the responsibility of the offense charged."[52]
WHEREFORE, on reasonable doubt, the judgment of the trial
court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the accused-appellants Dominador
Guillermo, Romulo dela Cruz and Rodolfo dela Cruz are ACQUITTED of the crime
charged and are ordered released unless they are detained for some other lawful
cause. Costs de officio.
The Director of the
Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to implement this Decision and to report to
this Court immediately the action taken hereon but not later than five (5) days
from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo,
(Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and
De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] RTC Decision, p. 237, Records.
[2] TSNs, November 25, 1992, pp. 2-3; November 17, 1992,
p. 7.
[3] TSNs, November 25, 1992, p. 3; May 4, 1993, p. 3.
[4] TSNs, November 25, 1992, pp. 3-5; May 4, 1993, pp.
8-9.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] TSN, November 25, 1992, pp. 5 and 18.
[11] TSN, May 4, 1993, pp. 4-5 and 10.
[12] Ibid.
[13] TSN, November 25, 1992, pp. 5, 17 and 19.
[14] Ibid., pp. 6-7 and 19-20.
[15] TSN, November 17, 1992, pp. 3-5.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid., pp. 4 and 20.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid., pp. 18-20.
[21] Ibid., pp. 5 and 21-22.
[22] Ibid.
[23] TSN, November 25, 1992, p. 23.
[24] Information, p. 27, Records.
[25] RTC Decision, p. 85, Records.
[26] Ibid., p. 117.
[27] Motion to Revive, p. 118, Records; Order, p. 119,
Records.
[28] Certificate of Arraignment, p. 123, Records.
[29] Appellant’s Brief (DOMINADOR GUILLERMO), p. 87.
[30] Appellant’s Brief (ROMULO DELA CRUZ and RODOLFO DELA
CRUZ), p. 145.
[31] Ibid., p. 145-146.
[32] Appellant’s Brief (DOMINADOR GUILLERMO), p. 84, Rollo.
[33] Appellant’s Brief (Romulo and Rodolfo dela Cruz), p.
139.
[34] TSN, November 17, 1992, pp. 9 and 11.
[35] Ibid., pp.10 and 11.
[36] Ibid., p. 13.
[37] Ibid., p. 23.
[38] Marco vs. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 276, 285 (1997)
[39] TSN, November 17, 1992, p.2.
[40] [Ibid., p. 13.
[41] Ibid., pp. 9 and 11.
[42] Ibid., p. 24.
[43] Ibid., p. 5.
[44] Ibid., p. 25.
[45] TSN, November 25, 1992, p. 23.
[46] TSN, May 4, 1993, pp. 6 and 11.
[47] TSN, November 17, 1992, p. 20.
[48] People vs. Gomez, 270 SCRA 432, 444 (1997)
[49] People vs. Salangga, 234 SCRA 407, 423 (1994)
as cited in People vs. Villagonzalo, 238 SCRA 215, 230 (1994); People
vs. Pagaura, 267 SCRA 17, 24 (1997)
[50] People vs. Igpas, 232 SCRA 521, 524-525
(1994); People vs. Vasquez, 280 SCRA 160, 177 (1997)
[51] People vs. Mejia, 275 SCRA 127, 155 (1997); citing
People vs. Cordova, 224 SCRA 319, 348 (1993)
[52] People vs. Eslaban, 218 SCRA 534, 544 (1993);
as cited in People vs. Vasquez, supra, p. 180.