ROLITO RABANAL, G. R. No. 160858
Petitioner,
Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairman,
-
versus -
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES, and
TINGA,
JJ.
PEOPLE OF THE
and HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga, J.:
Before
us is a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by
Rolito Rabanal (petitioner) impugning the (1) Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated 31 March 2003 in CA-G.R. CR No. 14772, affirming the
Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 97 convicting petitioner
of homicide and (2) its Resolution[3]
dated 11 November 2003 denying his motion for reconsideration.
In
Criminal Case No. Q-48913, petitioner, along with Salvador Impistan alias
“Ador” and Eloy Labatique (Eloy) were charged with homicide in an Information
which reads:
That on or about the 16th day of November, [sic]
1986, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring together, confederating
with [and] mutually helping each other, with intent to kill, with evident
premeditation and treachery, and without any justifiable cause, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal
violence upon the person of FELIPE SALES Y NACHOR by then and there stab[b]ing
him with a bladed weapon hitting the victim on different parts of his body
thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wou[n]ds which were the direct
and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the [heirs] of
the said FELIPE SALES Y NACHOR in such amount as may be awarded under the
provisions of the Civil Code.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.[4]
Eloy remained at large. On
arraignment, Ador and petitioner pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued.
As
culled from the testimony of the lone eyewitness Dionisio Javier (Javier) and
the medico-legal report, the evidence of the prosecution established the
following facts:
In
the evening of
Ador
and Eloy returned to the chapel. Ador
suddenly boxed Javier on the right side of his head, causing the latter to move
backward. When Javier asked “Bakit?” Eloy collared him and dragged
him to a corner of the chapel’s room.
Eloy punched him again on the head and at the back while Javier was
cowering to cover his face. At that
instance, Mang Johnny came back and tried to pacify the assailant by saying, “Tama na yan, tama na yan.” Mang Johnny subsequently ordered Javier to
leave.
Instead
of leaving, Javier went out to look for a stone to hurl back at Ador. However, Javier failed to find one; he
instead stood beside the door. Peeping
through a window, Javier saw the victim Felipe Sales putting his right foot
over a chair while holding on to iron railings.
Suddenly,
Javier saw petitioner appear from the back of the chapel. Petitioner leaned against the wall and pulled
out a knife measuring seven (7) inches in length. He stabbed the victim with an upward thrust
at his right armpit. Javier also saw
Ador stab the victim near the chest, after which the latter groaned, “Aray.”
The victim retaliated with a blow to Ador, who simultaneously stabbed
him at the front side of his body near the chest. Eloy entered the scene and likewise stabbed
the victim. Javier saw Ador stab the
victim several times until he fell down.
Ador continued stabbing the victim several times at the back while he
was lying flat on the floor.
At
this moment, Javier ran away. On his way
home, he met one of his friends and told him about the incident.
Dr.
Florante Mendoza was on duty at the
Dr.
Desiderio Moraleda, on the other hand, testified that as per autopsy result,
the cause of the victim’s death was “cardio arrest due to respiratory shock and
hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab wounds.”
The wounds totaled twenty-six (26), twenty-three (23) of which were
located in the dorsal side, chest, forearm and back. He said that there was no wound at the right
armpit. Based on his examination of the wounds, he opined that the assailants
had been in motion, although he also said that it was possible that there could
have been only one assailant.[6]
The
evidence for the defense consists of the testimonies of Raymundo Buenaventura
(Raymundo) and petitioner himself.
Raymundo
was inside the chapel when he saw Ador and Eloy stab the victim several
times. After the assailants left, the
victim was brought to the hospital in a tricycle. He belied the testimony of witness Javier
that petitioner was the first to stab the victim. According to Raymundo, petitioner was not
present at the scene of the crime.
Petitioner
testified on his behalf. He claimed that
he was then working at the
The case against Ador was dismissed
on demurrer to evidence. However,
petitioner was eventually convicted of homicide in a Decision[7]
dated
The trial court gave credence to the
testimony of the prosecution witness, despite some apparent inconsistencies on
his part. The RTC opined that the
prosecution was able to overcome the presumption of innocence of petitioner. The trial court sentenced petitioner to a
penalty of imprisonment with a minimum term of ten (10) years and four (4)
months and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years and ordered him to indemnity the
heirs of the victim in the amount of P30,000.00.[8]
Petitioner
appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals. In his Brief, he capitalized on the
inconsistency of Javier’s testimony relative to the physical evidence as shown
by the medical and autopsy findings to exculpate himself from criminal
liability. Petitioner claimed that he
could not be faulted for the death of the victim in the absence of credible
proof of injury he caused to the victim.[9]
The
appellate court dismissed petitioner’s contention by holding that “[t]he
location of the stab wounds at the cadaver is inconsequential in a homicidal
attack. As long as the intent to kill is
present, the requirement of the law for conviction is satisfied.”[10] The
Court of Appeals gave full faith to the positive identification by the lone
witness Javier of petitioner as the assailant in sustaining the latter’s
conviction.[11]
In a Decision dated 31 March 2003,
the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction with a
clarification of the nomenclature of the penalty pertaining to the minimum and
maximum terms of the indeterminate sentence, thus: ten (10) years and four (4)
months and one (1) day of prision mayor,
as minimum, to fifteen (15) years of reclusion
temporal, as maximum.[12]
Petitioner moved for reconsideration,
but his motion was denied in a Resolution dated
Even assuming, ex argumenti, that the witness’ account
of the location of the stab wound is disputatious, it will not warrant a
reversal of Our ruling in light of the positive, categorical and consistent
identification of appellant as the assailant.[13]
Aggrieved,
petitioner interposed the instant petition anchored on the primordial issue of
whether or not the guilt of petitioner was proven beyond reasonable doubt for
the crime charged.[14]
It is a well-entrenched rule that the
findings of fact of the trial court and its conclusions based on the said
findings are accorded by this Court high respect, if not conclusive effect,
especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. This is because of the unique advantage of
the trial court of having been able to observe, at close range, the demeanor
and behavior of the witnesses as they testify.[15]
Our jurisdiction in cases brought to
us from the Court of Appeals is limited to the review and revision of errors of
law allegedly committed by the appellate court, as its findings of fact are
deemed conclusive. We are not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over
again the evidence
already considered in the
proceedings below. However,
such rule is
not without
exceptions.[16] Such findings may be reviewed if there
appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court
may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly
considered, would alter the result of the case.[17] Where, as in this case, the weight and
sufficiency of evidence is crucial to the question of innocence or guilt of petitioner, a thorough reevaluation of the evidentiary
basis for conviction is imperative.
The prosecution relied heavily on the
testimony of its lone eyewitness to establish the participation of petitioner
in the crime. Javier positively
identified petitioner as one of those who stabbed the victim inside the
chapel. In fact, the rulings of the
lower courts rest primarily on his testimony to warrant petitioner’s conviction. Thus, it becomes evident that Javier’s
testimony is pivotal in the determination of the guilt of petitioner.
Although the well-entrenched rule is
that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient on which to anchor a
judgment of conviction, it is required that such testimony must be credible and
reliable.[18]
We shall now examine Javier’s version
of the stabbing incident. In his earlier
statement made before the police taken on
T: Isalaysay mo nga ang buong
pangyayari?
S: Ganito po iyon, ng gabing [sic] ay
nagpunta ako sa kapilya dahil nga may na aburol [sic] na patay, inabutan ko
doon sina FELIPE, DELFIN at maraming tao na nanood din ng sugal. Habang magkakatabi [sic] kami nina FELIPE at
DIONISIO ay dumating si ADOR na kasama si BOY BUWING at isa pa na hindi ko
kilala. Bigla akong sinuntok ni ADOR sa
mukha tapos niyan ay hinila ako sa aking t-s[h]irt ng kasama nila at nilayo,
buti na lang at naawat ni JOHNNY kaya hindi na ako nasaktan. Lalabas
Javier made these statements while
the events were still fresh on his mind. It can thus be inferred that there were three
people who allegedly attacked the victim, namely, Boy Buwing (petitioner), Ador,
and one other person whose identity was not known to the witness at that
time. Javier also stated that the trio
arrived together at the chapel.
On direct examination, or two months
after the incident, Javier gave the following answers to the questions
propounded by the private prosecutor:
Q- Now do you recall of [sic] any unusual
incident that happened on that précised [sic] date and time?
A- There was.
Q- And will you please relate to this Court
what that incident was all about?
A- Yes sir.
Q- Kindly
relate please?
A- Yes
sir.
x x x x
A- Then, Ador and Roy Labatique arrived.
Q- And
what happened after [sic] arrival of
these two?
A- Ador
told everyone present that if there is someone who will make trouble.
x x x x
A- “Sabi po nila, kung sino ang matapang dito
ako lang ang harapin, kung sino ang manggugulo, ako lang ang harapin.”
x x x x
Q- And after those words being uttered at by Ador, what happened
next, if you remember?
A- After they uttered those words, they left.
Q- And after having left the place if they
left as you said, what happened next?
A- The Barangay Tanod, Mang Johnny came.
x x x x
A- Mang Johnny told the children to get out.
x x x x
A- After he asked the children to leave, he
also left.
x x x x
Q- After that, what happened?
A- Then, Ador and Elloy suddenly arrived.
Q- Where were you positioned at when these
Ador and Elloy arrived at the chapel?
A- I was inside the chapel near the place
where we were playing pusoy.[20]
Based
on the foregoing testimony, Javier clearly stated that Ador and Eloy arrived
together at the chapel and left abruptly after issuing a vague threat. The Barangay Tanod came and asked the
children to leave. When Ador and Eloy
came back, they chanced upon Javier.
Upon seeing Javier, Ador boxed him.
Eloy, on the other hand, dragged him to a corner of the chapel and continuously
hit him at the back and head. This
mauling went on until he was pacified by the Barangay Tanod. Standing by the door of the chapel, Javier witnessed
the killing. He positively declared that
petitioner then stabbed victim once:
x x x
x
Q- You
said that this Rolito Rabanal arrived, where did you see him when he arrived?
A- He
came from behind the chapel.
Q- Why
do you know that he came from behind the chapel?
x x
x x
A- It
is because I saw him.
Q- And
what happened next after you saw him came from behind the chapel?
A- Dumikit
siya sa pader at bumunot ng patalim.
(witness demonstrating)
x x
x x
Q- After having seen [sic] the petitioner
with that knife, what happened next?
A- Then
he stabbed Felipe by an upward thrust while Felipe was holding on to the grill.
(witness demonstrating the sudden
upward thrust towards the left armpit)
Q-
Left armpit of
who?
A-
While Felipe was
holding on to the grill, Rolito Rabanal stabbed him upwards near the right
armpit. The thrust of the knife was
upwards. (witness demonstrating an upward thrust on his right armpit under the
armpit side of the right body just under the left armpit)
Q-
And where was the
petitioner positioned at in relation to the deceased Felipe Sales when Felipe
Sales as you said was stabbed on the right armpit?
A-
Boy Buwing was on
the right side of the Felipe Sales and the latter did not know that he was
there because he just came from behind the chapel.[21]
According to Javier,
the first stab wound was inflicted by petitioner, who came from behind the
chapel. While the victim was holding on
to the grill and unaware of the presence of petitioner, the latter allegedly
stabbed him near his right armpit.
Then, Javier
recounted the participation of Ador in the stabbing of Sales.
x x x x
Q- Now
after you said Felipe Sales was stabbed by the petitioner, what happened next?
A- Then
I looked at Felipe Sales, Ador hit him near the chest with a knife, and then,
after Felipe Sales was stabbed, he said, “aray,” after that, he boxed Ador who
was in front of him and then he simultaneously Ador stabbed him also near the
front side of his body near the chest. I
do not know the exact location.
Q- And this Ador you are referring to, would
you be able to describe him?
A- He
is a small man but he has a robust body.
x x
x x
Q- Now
after Ador whom you stated gave a thrust at the chest of the victim, what
happened next?
A- After
a simultaneous boxing by Felipe Sales and Ador was also stabbing him, then,
this Ador stabbed him, when he was about to ran [sic] a little backward, Ador held him by the collar
(witness indicating with his left hand the holding of the collar) and then
stabbed him again, and then, Ador held him [by] the collar of his neck. After Felipe Sales boxed Ador, Ador stabbed
him and when he moved a little backward, Ador followed him and held him by the
collar on his neck, and then, Boy Buwing arrived and also stabbed Felipe Sales,
and then Felipe Sales fell down to the ground, and then simultaneously, Elloy
Labatique and Ador entered.[22]
Upon his
cross-examination, however, Javier made a surprising turnaround.
Q- How
about Salvador Impistan, did he stab Felipe Sales?
A- After boxing me, a Barangay Tanod pacified
us and I was sent out of the chapel by the Barangay Tanod.
Q- So, in short, you did not see whether or
not Salvador Impistan stab Felipe Sales?
A- Because I was sent out by the Barangay Tanod.
Q- I will repeat my question for the last
time. Did you see Salvador Impistan stab
Felipe Sales?
A- No sir.
I did not see. I only saw Rolito
Rabanal.[23]
While Javier was very explicit in
recounting Ador’s participation in the crime in his sworn statement and during
the direct examination, he retracted during the cross-examination when he expressly
denied seeing Ador stab the victim. Presumably,
the dismissal of the case against Ador on demurrer was grounded on this
inconsistent, yet categorical statement of Javier.
The trial court disregarded these
apparent inconsistencies and upheld the general credibility of the witness who
appeared to be sincere.[24] We are well aware of the rule that minor inconsistencies
and contradictions do not destroy the credibility of the witness. In fact, they even tend to strengthen rather
than weaken one’s credibility by erasing any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[25]
However, these inconsistencies and
contradictions in Javier’s testimony cannot be characterized as minor or be
dismissed as trivial. If at all, these
inconsistencies reflect his uncertainty as to the identity of the malefactors. He was categorical in describing Ador’s
participation in stabbing the victim during the direct examination and even
earlier in his sworn statement, only to retract during the cross-examination
and deny having seen Ador stab the victim. This turnaround bears relevance to
the identification of the assailants so as to create a reasonable doubt as to
their culpability.
It is a well-established principle that when
the identification is doubtful, inconclusive, or unreliable, an acquittal is
called for. The doubtful identification of petitioner herein, when taken with
the absence of any other evidence showing his guilt, justifies his acquittal.[26]
Corroborative evidence may be
resorted to when there are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness
falsified the truth or that his observations had been inaccurate.[27]
Javier had unequivocally testified
that petitioner stabbed victim on the right armpit.[28] This does not correspond with the autopsy
report. Of the twenty-six (26) stab
wounds, not a single wound was found at the right armpit.
Physical evidence is a mute but
eloquent manifestation of truth and rates highly in the hierarchy of
trustworthy evidence. It enjoys a far more superior probative weight than
corroborative testimonies.[29]
In the instant case, the autopsy report negates the lone witness’s account of
the participation of petitioner in the stabbing of the victim.
The inconsistency between the
positive testimony of Javier and the physical evidence, particularly the
autopsy report, further diminishes the credibility of the lone eyewitness.
The Court has ruled that when serious
and inexplicable discrepancies in important details are found in a witness's
testimony, his/her testimony may be disregarded. Also, when discrepancies
pervade the testimonies of prosecution witnesses such that the totality of the
prosecution evidence fails to constitute a coherent account, the conviction of petitioner
cannot be justified. In this case, where the testimony of the lone witness may be the sole basis for conviction, the
serious discrepancies in his testimony hardly lend credence to his supposed
positive testimony and cast a serious doubt as to the credibility of his charge.[30]
There are other circumstances extant
from the record that likewise support reasonable doubt in favor of petitioner.
His own witness, Raymundo, asserted that petitioner was not present at all at
the scene of the crime. The medico-legal officer conceded that it was possible
that only one person inflicted all the stab wounds on the victim, thus it is
also possible that any one of the several people mentioned by Javier could
have, on his own, perpetrated the crime. The gaps and inconsistencies in
Javier’s tale give rise to a plausible alternative version, supported by
petitioner’s witness and unrebutted by the physical evidence, that petitioner
was not present at the scene of the crime, or otherwise did not participate in
the stabbing of the victim. When confronted with variant though equally
plausible version of events, the version that is in accord with the acquittal
or the least liability of the accused should be favored.[31]
Law and jurisprudence demand proof
beyond reasonable doubt before any person may be deprived of his life, liberty,
or even property. Enshrined in the Bill of Rights is the right of the petitioner
to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and to overcome the
presumption, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt must be established by
the prosecution. The constitutional presumption of innocence requires courts to
take "a more than casual consideration" of every circumstance or
doubt proving the innocence of petitioner.[32]
The lower courts committed reversible
error in ruling that the positive identification of petitioner-appellant by the
complainant as the lone eyewitness presented by the prosecution established his
guilt to a moral certainty. In this
case, the testimony of Javier is dubious; hence, stark of probative weight.
A conviction in a criminal case must
be supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt, which means a moral certainty
that petitioner is guilty.[33] The prosecution failed to establish the
identity of the assailant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, we cannot sustain petitioner’s
conviction.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 14772 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is on reasonable doubt, and is
ordered immediately released unless he is being held for some other valid or
lawful cause. The Director of Prisons is DIRECTED to inform this Court of the
action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairman
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairman,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief
Justice
[1]Rollo, pp. 18-30. Penned by Associate
Justice Ruben T. Reyes and concurred in by Associate Justices Elvi John S.
Asuncion and Lucas P. Bersamin.
[16]However, we have consistently enunciated that we may
review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals: (a) where there is grave
abuse of discretion; (b) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations,
surmises or conjectures; (c) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
absurd or impossible; (d) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals, in making
its findings, is conflicting; (e) when the factual findings are conflicting;
(f) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues
of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
appellee; (g) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant
facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would
justify a different conclusion; and (h) where the findings of fact of the Court
of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court, or are mere conclusions
without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set forth by the
petitioner are not disputed by the respondent, or where the findings of fact of
the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are
contradicted by the evidence on record. Tugade, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 407
SCRA 497, 507 (2003).
[17]J. King & Sons Company v. Hontanosas,
Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-03-1802, 21 September 2004, 438 SCRA 525, citing People v. Parreno, G.R. No. 144343, 7
July 2004, 433 SCRA 591.
[18]Francisco v. People , G.R. No. 146584,
[25]People v. Bulan, G.R. No. 143404, 8 June
2005, 459 SCRA 550, citing People v.
Tamayo, G.R. No. 138608, 24 September 2002, 389 SCRA 540 and People
v. Amazan, G.R. Nos. 136251, 138606 & 138607, 16 January 2001, 349 SCRA
218.
[26]People v.
Maguing, 352 Phil. 1026 (2003) citing People v. Saturno, 355 SCRA 578,
[27]Rivera v.
People, G.R. No. 138553, 30 June
2005, 462 SCRA 350, citing People v.
Manalad, G.R. No. 128593, 387 SCRA 263 (2002).
[29]People v. Palijon, 397 Phil. 545 (2000); People v. Ubaldo, 419 Phil.
718 (2001); People v. Atadero, 435 Phil.
888 (2002).
[30]People v.
Surio. 435 Phil. 888 (2002), citing People v. Palma, 308 SCRA 466 (1999) and
People v. Diaz, 308 SCRA 744 (1999).
[32]People v.
Ochate 434 Phil. 575 (2002), citing People
v. Morada, 307 SCRA 362, 379-380; People
v. San Juan, 326 SCRA 786, 801; and People
v. Ratunil, 334 SCRA 721, 737.