6/21/00 11:18:18 PM
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 119621. May 12, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMULO AVILLANA y CATASCAN, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.: Ncm
The case is an appeal from the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 121, Kalookan
City convicting accused Romulo Avillana y Catascan of murder and sentencing him
to reclusion perpetua and to pay P54,000.00 as actual and
compensatory damages, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00
as moral damages.
On February 3, 1993, Assistant City
Prosecutor Bagis S. Ismael filed with the Regional Trial Court, Kalookan,
Branch 121 an information charging accused with murder, committed as follows:
"That on or
about the 19th day of May, 1992 in Kal. City, MM., Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any
justifiable cause, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack
and stab with a bladed weapon one ANDRESITO SINSORO Y PABILONA, hitting the
latter on (sic) his right chest, thereby inflicting upon said victim serious
physical injuries, which injuries caused the latter’s instantaneous death.
"Contrary to
law."[2]
On February 15, 1993, upon arraignment,
accused pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.[3] Trial ensued accordingly.
The facts are as follows:
Between 10:00 and 11:00 in the evening of
May 19, 1992, Andresito Sinsoro, Arnold Fabello and one Romeo Cabigting were
walking side by side in front of the Star Elementary School, Phase 3, Bagong
Silang, Caloocan City waiting for a jeepney to bring them home, after attending
a party hosted by their friend Kuya Amang. Suddenly, accused approached from
behind the trio, took an extra step forward, then stabbed Andresito in his
chest with an 8 inch-long knife. Romeo Cabigting held Andresito to break the
latter’s fall. Accused then turned his ire on Romeo Cabigting who let go of the
wounded Andresito and ran for his life. Arnold Fabello also made a hurried
escape when accused was going to attack him next. He (Fabello) took a tricycle
and went to Andresito’s wife, Conchita Sinsoro, to inform her of what happened
to her husband. Conchita Sinsoro and her nephew immediately went to the Tala
Hospital where Andresito was brought. But at around 1 a.m. of the next day (May
20, 1992), Conchita Sinsoro went to Arnold Fabello’s house to inform him that
Andresito was dead. They proceeded to the Bagong Silang Police Detachment that
very same ungodly hour to report Andresito’s death.[4] Ncmmis
In his defense, accused narrated an alibi.[5] He claimed that from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. of May
19, 1992, he was doing repair jobs on the windows and roofing of his aunt’s
house at 240 Road 1, Pag-asa, Quezon City which he began to undertake on May
18, 1992. Accused left Pag-asa after 5:00 p.m., arrived at his house in Phase
II, Bagong Silang, Kalookan City at around 7:30 in the evening and slept. He
went out of his house between 10 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. to buy cooking oil and
bananas for the next day’s breakfast. Upon reaching a nearby store owned by
Barangay Tanod Laurencio Jovillano, accused was approached by an inebriated
Eddie Cuevas and became the object of the latter’s drunken ire ("kinursunada").
In the brewing tension between accused and Eddie Cuevas, Jose Tabingo and
Barangay Tanod Laurencio Jovillano arrived and pacified the two (2)
protagonists. Jose Tabingo invited accused to his house where the latter stayed
until 5:00 in the morning of the next day (May 20, 1992). Accused returned to
his house, ate breakfast and then left for his aunt’s house at Pag-asa, Quezon
City to continue his repair job. He stayed there until May 23, 1992.
Accused-appellant’s alibi was
corroborated by Jose Tabingo[6] and Barangay Tanod Laurencio Jovillano.[7]
The trial court gave credence to the
prosecution’s version of the circumstances surrounding Andresito’s death, and
appreciated the aggravating circumstance of treachery against accused. On
November 9. 1994, the trial court rendered decision, the decretal portion of
which reads:
"WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds accused ROMULO
AVILLANA Y CATASCAN GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and
sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, to pay the sum of
FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND (P54,000.00) PESOS as actual and compensatory
damages, to indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00)
PESOS and another sum of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS as moral
damages. With Costs.
"SO
ORDERED."[8]
Hence, this appeal.
Asserting his innocence, accused-appellant
submits that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The issue
boils down to credibility of witnesses. Scncm
The defense presented three (3) witnesses to
refute the testimony of sole prosecution eyewitness Arnold Fabello. We examined
the transcript of Arnold Fabello’s testimony and found that it indeed remained
consistent and straightforward even during cross-examination. The trial court did
not err in giving full credence to Arnold Fabello’s testimony. It is
well-settled that witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered, such that the
testimony of a single, trustworthy and credible witness could be sufficient to
convict an accused.[9] Criminals are convicted, not on the number of
witnesses against them, but on the credibility of the testimony of even one
witness who is able to convince the court of the guilt of the accused beyond a
shadow of doubt.[10]
We thus give full faith and credit to Arnold
Fabello’s account that it was accused-appellant who stabbed the victim
Andresito to death on the night in question. Not only was the place where the
stabbing took place well lighted which provided Arnold Fabello with sufficient
illumination to positively identify accused-appellant as the assailant, there
is no showing that Arnold Fabello was ill-motivated in implicating
accused-appellant in a serious charge such as murder. Where the locus
criminis afforded good visibility, and where no improper motive can be
attributed to the prosecution eyewitness for testifying against the accused,
then his version of the offense deserves much weight.[11]
In this connection, accused-appellant’s
alibi, though supported by the testimonies of his friends, weakens in the face
of positive identification by one credible, unbiased witness.[12] It should be stressed that for the defense of alibi
to prosper, the accused must not only prove that he was not at the scene of the
crime when it happened but also that it was impossible for him to be there at
the time of the commission of the offense.[13] In this case, accused-appellant himself testified
that his house and the store where he was supposed to buy his breakfast
necessities were just a one (1) kilometer-walking distance away from the Star
Elementary School where the victim Andresito was killed.[14] One (1) kilometer is an easily traversible distance
which cannot discount accused-appellant’s presence at the crime scene and his
killing of Andresito. Sdaamiso
Contrary to accused-appellant’s claim, the
fact that witness Arnold Fabello’s sworn statement dated February 1, 1993
(Exhibit "E") did not mention that accused-appellant took one step
ahead before stabbing Andresito does not destroy the witness’ credibility.
Sworn statements/affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open
court declarations because the former are often executed when an affiant’s
mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of
narrating in full the incident which has transpired. Testimonies given during
trials are much more exact and elaborate. Thus, testimonial evidence carries
more weight than sworn statements.[15]
The Court will not disturb the trial court’s
finding of treachery. The victim Andresito was caught by surprise and
defenseless when accused-appellant made his stealthful approach from behind and
lunged a knife into Andresito’s chest. Clearly, treachery attended the
commission of the crime since the attack, although frontal, was no less sudden
and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or offer any
defense of his person.[16]
As correctly decreed by the trial court, the
imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua under the then prevailing
provisions of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, in the absence of any
aggravating or mitigating circumstance. The award of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity is also correct, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[17] The P50,000.00 award for moral damages is
proper being consistent with current case law.[18]
Nonetheless, we have to modify the P54,000.00
award for actual and compensatory damages. Out of that amount, only P15,233.24
appears receipted - P14,000.00 as evidenced by a receipt issued by St.
Matthew Memorial Services[19] and the remaining P1,233.24 was for the
Meralco bill for the month of May, 1992.[20] Actual damages cannot be awarded in the absence of
receipts to support the same, in line with the rule that actual damages cannot
be allowed unless supported by evidence in the record.[21] The Court can only give credence to actual expenses
supported by receipts and which appear to have been genuinely expended in
connection with the victim’s death.[22] Sdaad
WHEREFORE, the trial court’s conviction of accused-appellant
Romulo Avillana y Catascan of murder is hereby AFFIRMED, with modification. He
is sentenced to reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties of the
law and to pay the heirs of the victim Andresito Sinsoro y Pabilona the reduced
amount of P15,233.24 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages. With costs.
SO ORDERED. PARDO, J
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno,
Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago,
JJ., concur.
[1] In Crim. Case No. C-42098 (93), Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, presiding, Rollo, pp. 24-37.
[2] Rollo, p. 2, Records, p. 1.
[3] Records, p. 6.
[4] TSN, June 7, 1993, pp. 4-9; June 14, 1993, pp. 3-13.
[5] TSN, February 15, 1994, pp. 2-17.
[6] TSN, October 15, 1993, pp. 2-6.
[7] TSN, October 8, 1993, pp. 2-5.
[8] Rollo, pp. 24-37.
[9] People vs. Galam, G.R. No. 114740, February 15, 2000; People vs. Lotoc, 307 SCRA 471 (1999); People vs. Platilla, 304 SCRA 339 (1999); People vs. De la Paz, 299 SCRA 86 (1998)
[10] People vs. Benito, 303 SCRA 468 (1999), citing Bautista vs. Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA 171 (1998)
[11] People vs. Tolibas, G.R. No. 103506, February 15, 2000.
[12] People vs. Tolibas, supra.
[13] People vs. Bahenting, 303 SCRA 558 (1999); People vs. Dacibar, G.R. No. 111286, February 17, 2000; People vs. Virtucio, Jr., G.R. No. 130667, February 22, 2000.
[14] TSN, February 15, 1994, p. 13.
[15] People vs. Sanchez, 302 SCRA 21 (1999), citing People vs. Padao, 267 SCRA 64 (1997); People vs. Miranda, 235 SCRA 202 (1994)
[16] People vs. Dando, G.R. No. 120646, February 14, 2000; People vs. Suelto, G.R. No. 126097, February 8, 2000.
[17] People vs. Vermudez, 302 SCRA 276 [1999]; People vs. Sañez, G.R. No. 132512, December 15, 1999; People vs. Barellano, G.R. No. 121204, December 2, 1999.
[18] People vs. Floro, G.R. No. 120641, October 7, 1999; People vs. Durado, G.R. No. 121669, December 23, 1999.
[19] Exhibit "A".
[20] Exhibit "A-2".
[21] People vs. Nialda, 289 SCRA 521 (1998)
[22] People vs. Ricafranca, G.R. Nos. 124384-86, January 28, 2000.