SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 146664.
JOHN ANGCACO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the
decision,[1]
dated
Petitioner John Angcaco and his
co-accused in the trial court, namely, Ramon Decosto,
Protacio Edep, Lydio Lota, and Mario Felizarte, were members of the Integrated National Police
of Taytay,
That on or about the 25th day of September, 1980, more or
less 4:00 o’clock in the morning in barangay Bato, municipality of Taytay,
province of Palawan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping one another, armed with guns, and
with treachery and evident premeditation and with intent to kill, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, fire at and shoot
FREDDIE GANANCIAL, hitting the latter with gunshots on vital parts of his body
and inflicting upon him multiple gunshot wounds which were the direct and
immediate cause of his instant death.[3]
When arraigned on
The prosecution presented seven witnesses: Noe Bergante,[5] Noel Bergante, Dr. Alberto Lim, Honorato Flores, Henry Pulga, Antonio Arosio, and Adolfo Jagmis. The gist of their testimonies is as follows:
At around
Once they were outside the house, Noe and Freddie were flanked by petitioner Angcaco on the right side and accused Ramon Decosto on the left side. Decosto pointed an armalite at the two and warned them not to run. Noe and Freddie joined Noel Bergante. Protacio Edep approached Freddie saying, “You are tough,” and pushed him. Then, shots rang out from the armalite and short firearm of Decosto and Edep, as a result of which Freddie Ganancial turned around and dropped to the ground face down. Decosto was around three meters away from Freddie.
In fright, Noe and Noel ran inside the
house. After a few seconds, Noe saw, through the
window, Lota and Angcaco
turning over the body of Freddie Ganancial. After briefly leaving the body, both came
back 15 minutes later. Noe said Lota brought with him an
object wrapped in a newspaper, which Noe surmised was
a knife. Lota
placed the object in the right hand of Freddie Ganancial. Noel, on the other hand, said that he
returned to the crime scene and recovered two empty shells which he gave to a
certain Major Silos. Noe
reported the matter to Barangay Tanods
Sabino Mahinay and a certain
Ramon.[6]
Antonio Arosio, a neighbor of the Bergantes, corroborated the testimonies of Noe and Noel Bergante. According
to Arosio, at around
Arosio claimed that accused Decosto and Felizarte fetched him from his house a short time later and took him to Edep, who was then in the house of the barangay captain. Arosio was asked about the whereabouts of the barangay captain. He told Edep that Restituto Bergante, the barangay captain, had gone to Puerto Princesa two days earlier.
Arosio testified that on his way home he saw a person lying on the ground in a prone position. He later learned it was Freddie Ganancial. Arosio identified in court the policemen whom he saw that morning, that is, Edep, Decosto, Felizarte, Lota, and Angcaco.
On cross-examination, Arosio claimed
that he was investigated by a police officer, whose name he could not remember,
three years after the incident. The
investigation was held in the house of Barangay
Captain Restituto Bergante,
who told him that he would testify in this case. Although he was reluctant to testify because
of fear, Arosio said he finally agreed to do so in
1984. Prior to the incident, he had not
heard Edep’s voice but only assumed that the voice he
heard that morning was that of Edep as the latter was
the highest-ranking policeman he later saw.[7]
Although Dr. Romeo D. Valino conducted
the postmortem examination on the body of Freddie Ganancial,
it fell to Dr. Alberto H. Lim, Assistant Provincial Health Officer in
Dr. Valino’s report stated in pertinent parts:
Physical Examination:
1. Gunshot wound lateral aspect D/3rd arm right (entrance) with contusion collar thru and thru passing thru the medial aspect arm right, entering to the lateral aspect mid axillary line at the level of the 9th rib hitting ascending colon and small intestine.
2. Gunshot wound at the level of the 7th rib at anterior axillary line right with contusion collar (entrance) to the epigastric region (exit) 10 cm[s]. x 3 cm[s]. hitting the liver (mascerated).
3. Gunshot wound subcostal region right at the level of mid clavicular line (entrance) right side to the subcostal region left side (exit at the level of mid mammary line).
4. Stomach with alcoholic smell.
5. Clotted blood at abdominal cavity, about 500 cc.
Cause of Death:
- Shock secondary to internal and external hemorrhage due to
gunshot wounds - body and abdomen.[8]
Dr. Lim identified the medical report signed by Dr. Valino because he was familiar with the handwriting of the latter. As regards the contents of the medical certificate, Dr. Lim stated that Freddie Ganancial, alias Edgar Gallego, 25 years of age, died as a result of shock secondary to internal and external hemorrhage due to gunshot wounds on the body and abdomen, which means that the victim died because of loss of blood resulting in shock due to a gunshot wound in the abdomen. He testified that the victim sustained three gunshot wounds. The first gunshot entered the body at the lateral aspect distal third arm with contusion collar, the bullet entering the lateral aspect midaxillary line at the level of the ninth rib and hitting the colon and small intestine. The second gunshot wound was located at the right side of the body at the seventh rib at right anterior axillary line with contusion collar (entrance), the bullet passing through the epigastric region and hitting the liver, which was mascerated. The third gunshot wound was in the right subcostal region at the level of the midclavicular line (entrance) right side to the left side of the subcostal region, the bullet exiting below the nipple.
On cross-examination, Dr. Lim said that based on the findings of
the medical report, the victim had been taking liquor prior to his death. He also admitted that he had not undertaken
studies on the identification of handwriting.
Dr. Lim claimed that he identified the signature of Dr. Valino in the medical report on the basis of the other
reports the latter had submitted to their office.[9]
Honorato Flores, senior ballistician of
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in
When cross-examined,
Sgt. Henry Pulga, acting station
commander of Taytay, Palawan,
testified that on October 6, 1980, he investigated the complaint filed by Barangay Captain Bergante
regarding the killing of the latter’s nephew, Freddie Ganancial. He identified the affidavits of Mario Felizarte (Exh. H) and Ramon Decosto (Exh. I), which he
himself prepared. According to Pulga, he informed Felizarte and Decosto of their rights to counsel and to remain silent and
explained to them the import of these rights.
He said that Felizarte and Decosto
voluntarily gave their statements before him, although Pulga
also admitted that the two did not have counsel to assist them during the
investigation.[11]
The last witness for the prosecution was Adolfo D. Jagmis, the chief investigator of the Palawan
Constabulary based in Tiniguiban. He testified that on
On cross-examination by counsel for accused Decosto, Jagmis was confronted with the affidavit of Angcaco, in which the latter identified an armalite which he allegedly used at the time of the incident. Jagmis said the armalite and the lead recovered from the scene were both given to the Provincial Fiscal’s Office.
The defense presented as its witnesses Protacio Edep, Ramon Decosto, John Angcaco, and Lydio Lota, whose testimonies are as follows:
In the early morning of
Edep conducted an investigation and
recovered from the scene of the crime empty shells from armalite
bullets, which he turned over to the provincial fiscal. Edep and his men
were then taken to Taytay and investigated by P/Sgt.
Adolfo Jagmis.
Thereafter, Edep and his men learned that they
were charged with murder. An
administrative complaint for grave misconduct was likewise filed against them
in the National Police Commission, but the case was dismissed.[14]
On
WHEREFORE, after a careful evaluation of the evidence on record,
this court is of the considered opinion, and so holds, that accused John Angcaco, is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Murder defined and penalized in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. With the
presence of the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave
a wrong and with the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court
hereby imposes upon him the penalty of imprisonment ranging from seventeen (17)
years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as minimum, to twenty
(20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay the heirs of
Freddie Ganancial the amount of fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) as death indemnity.
Co-accused Protacio Edep,
Ramon Decosto, Lydio Lota and Mario Felizarte are
ordered ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence.[15]
Petitioner Angcaco filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the trial court’s decision. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals decision reads:
WHEREFORE, with the modification only that the mitigating circumstance of incomplete fulfillment of a lawful duty should be appreciated in determining the imposable penalty, not lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, the trial court had correctly imposed the penalty of imprisonment ranging from seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum the questioned decision is affirmed in all other respects.
Costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED.[16]
Hence this appeal. Petitioner raises the following issues —
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS OVERLOOKED AND/OR MISCONSTRUED THE EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF DEFENSE OF [THE] PERSON OR RIGHTS OF A STRANGER ARE PRESENT.
II. WHETHER OR NOT DUE PROCESS OR THE RIGHTS OF PETITIONER-ACCUSED HAS BEEN VIOLATED WHEN THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OVERLOOKED OR FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE AND ITS FAILURE TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE
APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING [PETITIONER] APPELLANT.[17]
First. Petitioner Angcaco argues that the prosecution evidence failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He points out inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies and affidavits of prosecution witnesses Noel and Noe Bergante.
We agree with accused-appellant’s contention. Generally,
contradictions between the contents of the witness’ affidavit and his testimony
in court do not impair his credibility because affidavits are usually taken ex parte and, for that reason, often incomplete and
inaccurate.[18]
An affidavit will not always disclose all the facts and will even at times,
without being noticed by the witness, inaccurately describe the occurrences
related therein. Thus, we have time and
again held that affidavits are generally inferior to testimonies in court. Affidavits are often prepared only by the
investigator without the affiant or witness having a fair opportunity to
narrate in full the incident which took place, whereas in open court, the
latter is subjected to cross-examination by counsel for the accused.[19]
However, where the discrepancies between the affidavit and the witness’ testimony on the stand are irreconcilable and unexplained and they refer to material issues, such inconsistencies may well reflect on the witness’ candor and even honesty and thus impair his credibility.[20] Hence, we have recognized as exceptions to the general rule instances where the narration in the sworn statement substantially contradicts the testimony in court or where the omission in the affidavit refers to a substantial detail which an eyewitness, had he been present at the scene at the time of the commission of the crime, could not have failed to mention.[21] The case at bar is such an instance.
Noe Bergante
pointed to Decosto and Edep
as the ones who shot Freddie Ganancial.[22]
However, in his affidavit, dated
Noel Bergante fared no better than his
brother on the witness stand. On direct
examination, Noel, like his brother, identified Edep
and Decosto as the assailants of Freddie Ganancial.[26]
However, Noel’s affidavit, dated
Thus, prosecution witnesses Noel and Noe Bergante failed to give a credible and consistent account of the identity of the person or persons responsible for the killing of Freddie Ganancial. There is apparent from a reading of their testimonies a manifest tendency to improvise, modify, and even contradict themselves in order to implicate each of the accused. It is in fact doubtful whether Noe and Noel saw what they testified about. Even the trial court disregarded the testimonies of Noe and Noel Bergante and acquitted Edep and Decosto in spite of their identification by these witnesses.
We are thus left with no clear picture of the events that
transpired on
Second. The conviction
of petitioner Angcaco must, however, be upheld in
view of his admission that he shot Freddie Ganancial. The rule is that while the prosecution has
the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused, once the defendant admits
commission of the act charged, although he invokes a justification for its
commission, the burden of proof is shifted to him to prove the said justifying
circumstance.[33]
Petitioner Angcaco cannot rely on the weakness of the
evidence for the prosecution, for even if it is weak, it cannot be disbelieved
after he has admitted the killing itself.[34]
This is because a judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high
order. It is presumed that no sane
person would deliberately confess to the commission of an act unless moved by
the desire to reveal the truth.[35]
Petitioner claims that he acted in defense of Sgt. Protacio Edep, whom Freddie Ganancial was about to strike with a bolo. We do not agree. For petitioner to successfully claim the benefit of Art. 11, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code, there must be proof of the following elements: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, which must be sufficiently proven by the defense,[36] is present when there is actual or imminent peril to one’s life, limb, or right. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon by the victim himself.[37] In this case, it is contended that the victim, who was armed with a bolo, approached Edep menacingly. But, there is no other competent evidence to corroborate this self-serving claim. Edep testified that he heard petitioner’s warning that an armed man was behind him.[38] However, when asked about the weapon allegedly held by the victim, Edep replied that he did not see any as he turned around to face his supposed assailant.[39] It was only later that Edep claimed seeing a knife in the area where the victim fell.[40] One is thus led to suspect that Edep’s claim that he saw a knife was a mere afterthought designed to exculpate his fellow officer from the charges against him.
Petitioner’s own testimony suffers from inconsistencies and improbabilities on material points.
First, there was no reason for the victim, Freddie Ganancial, to attack Sgt. Edep, who was looking for Restituto, because the latter was not there in his house, having earlier gone to Puerto Princesa. In fact, Edep admitted he was about to order his men to leave the premises when they found that their quarry was not there. The victim himself was not wanted by the police. Dr. Lim said Ganancial was drunk. In that condition, he could have easily have been overpowered by any member of the arresting team, if he made any aggressive move, without shooting him to prevent him from doing harm to the latter.
Second, when cross-examined about the bolo, petitioner said he could not remember who took it away.[41] However, at a later hearing, petitioner stated that it was he who picked up the bolo and turned it over to Edep, his superior officer.[42] But how could he not remember who took the bolo if he was the one who did so? Once again, petitioner was prevaricating.
Third, petitioner said that he merely intended to fire a warning shot when he saw Ganancial. This claim is belied by the fact that the victim sustained three gunshot wounds on the chest and abdomen. It is apparent that petitioner intended to kill the victim and not merely to warn him.
Indeed, even assuming that the victim was charging at Sgt. Edep, it would have been sufficient for petitioner to warn Sgt. Edep of the danger. Not that petitioner was not expected to pause for a moment while his colleague was in danger.[43] However, the rules of engagement do not, on the other hand, require that he should immediately draw or fire his weapon if the person accosted did not heed his call.[44] But rather than confront the victim as to his intended purpose, petitioner immediately shot the former without further thought.
Petitioner claims the victim was armed with a bolo. The circumstances, however, indicate
otherwise. Petitioner was questioned by
the prosecutor on the existence of the bolo during the hearing held on
Nor can petitioner’s claim that the killing was done in fulfillment
of a lawful duty be sustained, as the Court of Appeals ruled. For this justifying circumstance to be
appreciated, the following must be established: (1) that the offender acted in the lawful
exercise of a right or a duty; and (b) that the injury or offense committed be
the necessary consequence of the due performance of such right or office.[48]
In this case, the mission of petitioner and his colleagues was to effect the arrest of Restituto Bergante. As Edep himself explained, the standard procedure in making an arrest was, first, to identify themselves as police officers and to show the warrant to the arrestee and to inform him of the charge against him, and, second, to take the arrestee under custody.[49] But, it was not shown here that the killing of Ganancial was in furtherance of such duty. No evidence was presented by the defense to prove that Ganancial attempted to prevent petitioner and his fellow officers from arresting Restituto Bergante. There was in fact no clear evidence as to how Freddie Ganancial was shot. Indeed, as already stated, any attempt by the victim to arrest the wanted person was pointless as Restituto Bergante was not in his house. As regards the second requisite, there can be no question that the killing of Freddie Ganancial was not a necessary consequence of the arrest to be made on Restituto Bergante.
Reliance by the Court of Appeals on the case of People v. Oanis[50] is misplaced. In Oanis, the accused, who were police officers, shot and killed the victim under the erroneous notion that the latter was the person they were charged to arrest. The Court held that the first requisite ¾ that the offenders acted in performance of a lawful duty ¾ was present because the offenders, though overzealous in the performance of their duty, thought that they were in fact killing the man they have been ordered to take into custody dead or alive. In this case, petitioner did not present evidence that he mistook Freddie Ganancial for Restituto Bergante and, therefore, killed him (Ganancial) perhaps because he placed the lives of the arresting officers in danger.
Third. On the other hand, we think the Court of Appeals
erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery against
petitioner. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof
which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party might take.[51]
For treachery to exist, two conditions must be present: (1) there must be
employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity
to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were
deliberately or consciously adopted.[52]
As has been discussed, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Noe and Noel Bergante cannot be
given credence. As we already stated,
even the trial court acquitted accused Decosto and Edep, both of whom were implicated as the assailants. Without evidence of the manner the aggression
was made or how the act resulting in the death of the victim began and
developed, it is not possible to appreciate the qualifying circumstance of
treachery.[53]
Nor can evident premeditation be appreciated in this case. Evident premeditation requires proof of the following elements: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[54] None of these elements has been shown in this case.
For the foregoing reasons, petitioner is liable only for homicide, for which the penalty under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal. As neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime, the penalty must be imposed in its medium period, pursuant to Art. 64(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum imposable penalty on accused-appellant falls within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, i.e., prision mayor, or from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. Accordingly, the penalty to be imposed on accused-appellant must be fixed within the range of prision mayor, or from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve years (12) years, as minimum, to reclusion temporal medium, or from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, as maximum.
Petitioner should also be made to pay the heirs of the victim,
Freddie Ganancial, the amount of P50,000.00 as
moral damages,[55]
in addition to the amount of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court and
the Court of Appeals as indemnity.[56]
The purpose of making such an award of moral damages is not to enrich the heirs
of the victim but to compensate them for injuries to their feelings.[57]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated
November 29, 2000, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that petitioner is found
guilty of the crime of homicide and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of eight
(8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor,
as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, and to pay the heirs of the victim, Freddie Ganancial, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00
as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, J., (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena, and De
Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Per Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes and concurred in by Justices Ramon A.
Barcelona and Rodrigo V. Cosico.
[2] Judge Amor A. Reyes tried the case, but the decision was written
by Assisting Judge Romulo T. Arellano, pursuant to
Supreme Court Adm. Order 153-94, as amended.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4]
[5] Also referred to as Vigonte or Vergonte in the
transcript of stenographic notes.
[6] TSN (Noe Bergante), pp. 3-24,
[7] TSN (Antonio Arosio), pp. 3-35,
[8] Exh.
E; Records, p. 959.
[9] TSN (Dr. Alberto H. Lim),
pp. 4-12,
[10] TSN (Honorato Flores), pp. 5-14,
[11] TSN (Sgt. Henry Pulga), pp. 3-13,
[12] Records, pp.
968-969.
[13] TSN (Adolfo D. Jagmis), pp. 36-44,
[14] TSN (John Angcaco), pp. 3-18, Oct. 7, 1986; TSN (Protacio
Edep), pp. 3-36, Oct. 3, 1986; TSN (Ramon Decosto), pp. 3-10, Sept. 4, 1986; TSN (Lydio
Lota), 9-15, Oct. 17, 1986.
[15] RTC Decision, pp.
11-12; Records, pp. 1001-1002.
[16] CA Decision, p. 17; Rollo, p. 69.
[17] Petition, p. 7; id.,
p. 32.
[18] See Cariage v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143561,
[19] Sarabia v.
People, G.R. No. 142024,
[20] People v.
Tampon, 258 SCRA 115 (1996) citing
People v. Aniscal, 228 SCRA 101 (1993);
People v. Casim, 213 SCRA 390 (1992); People v.
Tulagan, 143 SCRA 107 (1986).
[21] People v.
Castillo, 261 SCRA 493 (1996).
[22] TSN (Noe Bergante), p. 12,
[23] Exh.
A; Records, pp. 953-954.
[24] TSN (Noe Bergante), pp. 20-22,
[25]
[26] TSN (Noel Bergante), p. 12,
[27] Exh.
C; Records, p. 956.
[28] Spelled as Hardiolen in the affidavit.
[29] Exh.
D; Records, pp. 957-958.
[30] TSN (Noel Bergante), p. 14,
[31] TSN (Noel Bergante), pp. 4-14,
[32] People v. Milan, 311 SCRA 461
(1999).
[33] Balanay v.
Sandiganbayan, 344 SCRA 1 (2000).
[34] People v. Mendoza, 327 SCRA 695
(2000).
[35] People v. Samolde,
336 SCRA 632 (2000).
[36] See People v. Basadro,
G.R. No. 131851,
[37] People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 128116,
[38] TSN (Protacio Edep), p. 11,
[39]
[40]
[41] TSN (John Angcaco), p. 17,
[42]
[43] People v. Ulep,
340 SCRA 688 (2000).
[44] People v. Tan, G.R. Nos.
116200-02,
[45] TSN (John Angcaco), pp. 2-3,
[46] See People v.
Besana, 64 SCRA 84 (1975).
[47] TSN, p. 17,
[48] People v. Belbes,
334 SCRA 161 (2000).
[49] TSN (Protacio Edep), p. 17,
[50] 74 Phil. 257 (1943).
[51] People v. Natividad,
G.R. No. 138017,
[52] People v. Samudio,
G.R. No. 126168,
[53] People v. Mationg,
G.R. No. 137989,
[54] See People v. Tan, G.R. Nos.
116200-02,
[55] People v. Gano,
G.R. No. 134373,
[56] See e.g., People
v. Gano, supra.
[57] See e.g., People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No.
128362,