FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 137610-11.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANUEL GUTIERREZ (at large); JUANCHO GUTIERREZ (at large); ESTING CARIÑO (at large) and ZACARIAS CASTILLO, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
Several men did not live to see daylight at the break of dawn on
On
"That on or about the 8th day of January 1992, in
the morning, in barangay Sanlibo,
municipality of Bayambang, province of Pangasinan, New (sic) Republic of the Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, confederating
and conspiring together and mutually aiding one another, armed with
high-caliber firearms, with treachery and evident premeditation and with intent
to kill, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously shoot and spray with bullets the jeep driven by Lorenzo de Leon
resulting in the deaths of Vicente de Leon, Aldren de
Leon[1] and Guillermo Tapiador[2] xxx
xxx
and the wounding with serious gunshot injuries of Racquel Agbuya, Catalina de Leon, Gregoria de Leon and Lorenzo de Leon xxx
xxx
the accused having performed all the acts of execution which would produced (sic) the crime of Murder as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrators and that is due to the able and (sic) medical attendance extended to the said victims which prevented their death to the damage and prejudice of the victims and the heirs of the deceased victims.
CONTRARY to Art. 248, and Art. 248 in relation to Art. 6 of the
Revised Penal Code."[3]
Accused Castillo pleaded not guilty. Accused Manuel Gutierrez, Juancho Gutierrez, and Esting Cariño have remained at-large, thus trial proceeded only against accused Castillo.
The prosecution's version of the story is as follows:
At about
Catalina de Leon also testified.
At about
SPO1 Lito Barboza
took the witness stand. On
Police officer Federico Simeon corroborated the testimony of SPO1
Lito Barboza. On
Dr. Juan Carrera testified that on
"GSW (gunshot wound):#(1) - PT. ENTRY: 10 TH ICS
POST. AXILLARY (L)
- NO PT. OF EXIT:
GSW: #(2) - PT. OF ENTRY: SUPRAORBITAL AREA (R)
-NO PT. OF EXIT."[8]
He also issued a medical certificate for Lorenzo de Leon indicating the following injuries:
"- WOUND, LACERATED 2.5 CM. FRONTAL AREA (R)
- MULTIPLE SPLINTER WOUND, 0.5 CM.-1CM in its GREATEST DIAMETER, FACIAL AREA (R)
- WOUND, LACERATED 2.0 CM., NASAL BRIDGE (R)
- WOUND, LACERATED #3 1.5 -2.0 CM. MANDIBLE
- WOUND, LACERATED 3 CM. STERNAL AREA
- WOUND, MULTIPLE SPLINTER WOUNDS, ANTERIOR, CHEST AREA
GSW: #2 - 0.5 CM. IN DIAMTER POSTERIOR ASPECT, LOWER THIRD, ARM,
(R)."[9]
The splinter wounds were caused by gunshots.
His examination on Catalina de Leon showed that she suffered the following gunshot wounds:
"GSW: # (1) - PT. OF ENTRY: - 2.5 CM. POSTERIOR ASPECT, M/3, UPPER ARM, (L)
GSW: # (2) - PT. OF EXIT: - ANTERIOR ASPECT M/3 U/ARM (L)
GSW: # (3) - POSTERIOR ASPECT M/3, UPPER ARM (L)
GSW: # (4) - PT. OF ENTRY: - 2.0 CM. (L) LUMBAR AREA
- NO EXIT
- FRACTURE, COMPLETE, OPEN HUMERUS (L).”[10]
Another medical certificate for Racquel Agbuya was prepared by Dr. Carrera, indicating therein her wounds, viz:
"GSW: # (1) POE: PERIANAL (R) 4.0 CM. IN DIAMETER
POX: -NONE
GSW: # (2) POE: - MEDIAL ASPECT, P/3RD, ARM, (R), 2.0 CM. IN DIAMETER
POX: - DORSOMEDIAL ASPECT, P/3RD, 3.0 CM. IN DIAMETER (R)
GSW: # (3) POE: -LATERAL ASPECT, THIGH, (R)
POX: -NONE
GSW: # (4) POE: - LATERAL ASPECT, M/3RD, LEG (R) 2.0 CM. IN DIAMETER
POX:
- LATERAL ASPECT, D/3RD LEG (R) 4.0 CM. IN DIAMETER."[11]
Dr. Carrera opined that if Catalina de
Leon had not received immediate medical attention, she would have died of hypovolemic shock or loss of blood from the fracture of her
humerus or upper hand. She did not, however, require any operation. Gregoria de Leon
may have developed neurogenis shock secondary to pain
if not treated. Lorenzo de Leon needed
surgical intervention on the multiple lacerated wounds on different parts of
his body.[12]
Dr. Nestor C. Pascual also took the
witness stand. He was the Municipal
Health Officer of Bayambang since 1987 up to May
1992. In January 1992, he was in his
office at Bayambang.
At about
Dr. Pascual's examination showed that Vicente's face was deformed. There was a gunshot wound about 1.5 centimeters on the medial portion of the left eye, penetrating the brain and exiting a little above the left ear. There was another gunshot wound severing the vertebral column and penetrating the abdominal cavity and hitting the intestine blood vessels. The cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to gunshot wounds which caused massive bleeding.
With respect to Aldrin de Leon, Dr. Pascual's findings showed that a bullet penetrated his
heart. The cause of his death was also
cardiac arrest due to gunshot wound. As
regards Guillermo Tapiador, Jr., Dr. Pascual's examination revealed that he sustained a gunshot
wound that penetrated his abdominal cavity and hit his stomach, liver and blood
vessels. A second gunshot wound
penetrated the abdominal cavity and hit the intestines and blood vessels. He also sustained a superficial gunshot wound
on the waist. The fourth gunshot wound
hit the left lung and heart. The cause
of his death was cardiorespiratory arrest due to
gunshot wounds.[13]
The defense presented the accused Castillo. From 1990 to 1996, he was employed as a house
painter by the Landhaus Properties and Development
Corporation. On
Castillo knows the victim, Lorenzo de Leon, as the latter is his
first cousin. He also knows Catalina de
Leon, Lorenzo's wife. He denied
Lorenzo's and Catalina's testimony that he was among those who fired at them on
Ernesto Tabor corroborated accused Castillo's testimony. He is a resident of Antipolo,
Rizal and a co-painter of the accused at the Landhaus Properties and Development Corporation. He worked for the company from 1991 to 1994
and got to know the accused Castillo in 1991.
On
Leoberto Makilan,
another co-worker of Castillo, also testified.
He is a resident of
Eva Leonil, live-in partner of the
accused, took the witness stand. They
had been living together since 1990 and have two children. According to her, the accused Castillo is a
painter employed by the Landhaus Properties and
Development Corporation in
On January 7, 8, and 9, 1992, the accused Castillo worked from
On rebuttal, the prosecution presented Erlinda
de Leon Bocalbos.
She is the cousin of accused Castillo.
She testified that Castillo and the accused Juancho
Gutierrez and Manuel Gutierrez are relatives as the mother of Zacarias Castillo and the mother of Juancho
and Manuel Gutierrez are second cousins. Accused Esting
Cariño is married to Susan Castillo who is the niece
of accused Zacarias Castillo.[18]
The trial court upheld the version of the prosecution and sentenced the accused Castillo, viz:
"WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing consideration, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
In Crim. Case No. SCC-1870, this Court finds the accused Zacarias Castillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of Murder and hereby sentences him to reclusion perpetua to each count and to indemnify the heirs of the victims P50,000.00 for each count of murder committed, and of four (4) counts of frustrated murder and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of an imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium as maximum for each count.
In Crim. Case No. SCC-1871, for failure
of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,
accused Zacarias Castillo is hereby acquitted of the
crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm."[19]
Hence, this appeal with the following assignment of errors:
"I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE MANIFESTLY IMPROBABLE, INCREDIBLE, UNRELIABLE AND BIASED TESTIMONY OF THE SPOUSES, (SIC) LORENZO DE LEON AND CATALINA DE LEON.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT (TO) OR IN REJECTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF ALIBI.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN FINDING THE APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN
CRIMINAL CASE NO. SCC 1870."[20]
The appeal is bereft of merit.
Accused makes much of the fact that the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses, specifically Lorenzo de Leon and Catalina de Leon, show that they could not have possibly seen their assailants. With respect to Lorenzo, accused points out that Lorenzo saw the accused Juancho and Manuel Gutierrez when they blocked the road and started firing at the jeep as they were illuminated by the headlights of the jeep. Lorenzo then immediately jumped off the jeep as soon as the firing began, thus, accused Castillo argues, he could not have possibly seen him (accused Castillo) during or after the firing took place. As regards Catalina, she was already hit after the first volley of shots, then she fell down on the floor of the jeep, preventing her to see their assailants. Accused also avers that it was unnatural and unthinkable that he passed the back of the jeep if he was indeed one of the assailants as the natural tendency of perpetrators in an ambush would be to hide their identities.
In upholding the decision of the trial court, we adhere to the
well-settled rule that the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is
best left to the discretion of the trial court which, unlike a review court,
observed the demeanor and conduct of witnesses while testifying and thus was in
a better position to assess their capacity for truth.[21] While accused's
arguments based on the witnesses' affidavits speculate on what could have
actually happened, the prosecution witnesses testified on what actually
happened, i.e., that they saw the accused Castillo as one of the four
men who fired at them. We have ruled
that affidavits are generally subordinate in importance to open court declarations. Affidavits are not complete reproductions of
what the affiants have in mind because they are generally prepared by the
administering officer and the affiants simply sign them after the same have
been read to him.[22] The accused Castillo's argument that he was
not ably identified to have been one of the assailants as even the police
blotter entry regarding the incident failed to mention him deserves scant
consideration. We have ruled that police
blotter entries should not always be given due significance or probative value
for they do not constitute conclusive proof of the identities of suspected
assailants.[23]
That there was conspiracy among the accused is unmistakable. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of
the perpetrators before, during, and after the crime, which indicate a common
design, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.[24] In the case at bar, the prosecution
witnesses saw the four accused in the vicinity of the crime scene, they (the
accused) carried firearms and fired at them, the police recovered empty shells
matching these firearms at the scene of the crime after the firing took place,
and all the accused ran towards the mango trees going to Malicer
after the attack. The four accused
clearly conspired. When conspiracy is shown,
the act of one is the act of all the conspirators.[25] It is of no import therefore who delivered
the fatal shots and the shots resulting in the injury of the victims as the act
of one of the accused is the act of all.
The attack was undoubtedly treacherous. The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim by the perpetrator of the crime,
depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself or repel the aggression,
thus insuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without any
provocation on the part of the victim.[26] Needless to say, the unsuspecting victims in
the jeep driven by Lorenzo de Leon were taken by surprise and had no means to
defend themselves. They were simply on
their way to attend a hearing in another town in Pangasinan
and had no inkling that such a gruesome attack would befall them at the break
of dawn.
Anent the accused's defense of alibi,
suffice it to say that the defense of alibi is inherently weak and easily
fabricated, particularly when it is corroborated by relatives and friends of
the accused as in the case at bar.[27] While the defense presented a voucher
showing that the accused Castillo worked and was paid for his work at the Landhaus Property and Development Corporation on the day the
crime was committed or on
We now come to the characterization of the crimes for which the
trial court convicted the accused Castillo.
The trial court found the accused Castillo guilty of three counts of
murder and four counts of frustrated murder.
While the information charged the accused with the complex crime of
multiple murder with multiple frustrated murder, we agree with the trial court
that he should be held guilty of three separate counts of murder in accordance
with prevailing jurisprudence.[30] We, however, find that the trial court erred
in convicting the accused Castillo of four counts of frustrated murder as the
evidence on record shows that only Catalina de Leon's gunshot wounds could have
been fatal were it not for the timely medical treatment she received. For this, the accused is guilty of one count
of frustrated murder. As there is a
dearth of evidence that Gregoria de Leon, Lorenzo de
Leon, and Racquel Agbuya
sustained fatal wounds, it cannot be said that the accused performed the last
act necessary to produce the consummated crime of murder. While the accused may have had the intent to
kill these three victims as manifested by their use of deadly weapons in their
attack, the absence of evidence that they sustained fatal wounds compels us to
convict the accused of three counts of attempted murder.[31]
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the impugned decision is MODIFIED. The accused-appellant is found guilty of
three (3) counts of Murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of three (3)
sentences of reclusion perpetua and to pay for
each count P50,000.00 civil indemnity and P50,000.00 moral
damages.[32] He is also found guilty of one (1) count of
frustrated murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor medium as
minimum to fourteen (14) years and ten (10) months of reclusion temporal
medium as maximum, and to pay the civil indemnity of P30,000.00.[33] He is also found guilty of three (3) counts
of attempted murder and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate prison term of
two (2) years, four (4) months and ten (10) days of prision
correccional medium as minimum, to eight (8)
years, two (2) months and twenty (20) days of prision
mayor medium as maximum, and to pay the civil indemnity of P20,000.00
for each count.[34] Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., (Chairman), Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago,
JJ., concur.
[1] Also referred to as Aldrin de Leon.
[2] Also referred to as
Guillermo Tapiador, Jr.
[3] Rollo,
pp. 8-10.
[4] TSN, Lorenzo de
Leon,
[5] TSN, Catalina de Leon, August 24, 1998, pp. 12-17;
also August 27, 1998, pp. 2-14; Original Records, p. 19; Sworn Statement of
Catalina de Leon.
[6] TSN, SPO1 Lito Barboza,
[7] TSN, Federico
Simeon,
[8] Original Records, p.
151, Exhibit "P".
[9]
[10] Original Records, p.
153, Exhibit "R".
[11]
[12] TSN, Dr. Juan Carrera,
[13] TSN, Dr. Nestor Pascual,
[14] TSN, Zacarias Castillo,
[15] TSN, Ernesto Tabora,
[16] TSN, Leoberto Makilan,
[17] TSN, Eva Leonil,
[18] TSN, Erlinda Bocalbos,
[19] Rollo,
p. 35.
[20]
[21] People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 134004,
[22] People v. Sanchez, 313 SCRA 254
(1999), citing People v. Lusa, 288 SCRA 96
(1998).
[23] People v. Aquino,
G.R. No. 145371,
[24] People v. Quinici,
et al., G.R. No. 142430, September 13, 2001, citing People v. Mendoza, 332 SCRA
485 (2000).
[25] People v. Aquino, supra, citing People v. Landicho,
258 SCRA 1 (1996).
[26] People v. Feliciano, G.R. Nos.
127759-60, September 24, 2001, citing People
v. Tan, 315 SCRA 375 (1999).
[27] People v. Dionision,
G.R. No. 137676,
[28] People v. Sacapaño,
313 SCRA 650 (1999).
[29] People v. Reynaldo de Guzman, G.R.
No. 124037,
[30] People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 611
(1999).
[31] People v. Lacuesta,
G.R. No. 129212, September 14, 2001, citing Araneta,
Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 122 (1990).
[32] People v. Panado,
et al., G.R. No. 133439,
[33] People v. Pacaña,
et al., 345 SCRA 72 (2000).
[34] People v. Almazan,
G.R. Nos. 138943-44,