PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee,
Present:
Panganiban, C.J.
(Chairperson),
- versus - Ynares-Santiago,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and
Chico-Nazario, JJ.
FABIAN
SADES y RODEL,
Appellant. Promulgated:
July 12, 2006
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
On
On
That
on or about the 26th day of December, 2000, at 1:00 o’clock in the
morning, more or less, in barangay Maragooc, municipality of Gloria, province
of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with a decided purpose to kill, while armed
with a short firearm, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and shoot therewith one BIENVENIDO FALLARNA ROGA, inflicting
upon the latter mortal gunshot wounds in the different parts of the body which
caused his instantaneous death.
That
in the commission of the crime the qualifying circumstances of treachery and
evident premeditation are attendant.
Upon arraignment on
During trial, Marilyn Roga (Marilyn),
the wife of the deceased and the sister of appellant, testified in court, to
wit:
PROSECUTOR DELOS
REYES:
x x x x
Q Where
were you on
A I
was in our house, sir.
Q Where
is your house situated?
A It
[is] situated in Maragooc, sir.
Q Who
were your companions in your house at that time?
A I
and my family, sir.
Q Was
your husband Bienvenido with you during said date and time?
A Yes,
sir.
x
x x x
Q May
I proceed your Honor. Do you know why
your husband died?
A Yes,
sir.
Q What
was the cause of death of your husband?
A He
was shot, sir.
Q Who
shot your husband?
A Fabian
Sades, sir.
Q Why
did you say that it was Fabian Sades who shot your husband?
A Because
I saw him, sir.
Q Where
did Fabian sho[o]t your husband?
A In
our house, sir.
Q How
far were you when the accused shot your husband?
A More
than one arms length, sir.
Q And
how far was your husband from you when he was shot by Fabian Sades?
A We
were side by side with each other, sir.
Q In
what part of your house was your husband shot?
A In
the doorway, sir.
Q Why
were you in the doorway before your husband [was] shot?
A Because
we heard the barking of the dog, sir.
Q Who
was with you when you went out of the house to verify [xxx] the barking of the
dog?
A My
husband and me, sir.
Q This
incident regarding the shooting of your husband took place at around
A There
was no electricity but we have [a] lamp, sir.
Q What
kind of lamp are you referring to?
A Improvised
lamp or moron, sir.
Q How
far was that lamp from the place where you saw the accused sho[o]t your
husband?
A More
than one arms length, sir.
Q Now,
at the distance of one arms length away from the accused, will you please
describe to us the gun used by the accused in shooting your husband?
A It
was a short firearm, sir.
Q [xxx]
how many times did the accused sho[o]t your husband?
A Only
on[c]e, sir.
Q What
happened to your husband after he was shot by the accused?
A The
person who shot my husband ran away, sir.
“Tumakbo na po yoong taong bumaril sa asawa ko”.
Q And
what happened to your husband?
A He
walked, sir.
Q Towards
what direction?
A He
walked towards the kitchen, sir.
Q Was
your husband able to reach your kitchen?
A Yes,
sir.
Q What
happened after your husband reached the kitchen?
A He
laid down, sir.
x x x x.[3] (Emphasis supplied)
On
the other hand, appellant interposed the defense of alibi and testified thus:
ATTY. PUNZALAN:
Q – Mr.
Witness, where were you on
A – I
was in our house, sir.
Q – What
were you doing in your house at that time and date?
A – I
was sleeping, sir.
Q – Before
you sle[pt] who were with you in your house on
A – My
two children and the friends of my children and my wife.
Q – Can
you give us the names of these persons?
A – Yes,
sir.
Q – Can
you tell this Honorable Court?
A – Norilyn
Sades, Angelina Fuelda, Marilyn Sades and Esperanza Rotone.
Q – No
more?
A – No
more, sir.
Q – On
said date and time do you remember of any unusual incident that happened?
A – Yes,
sir.
Q – What
was that?
A – Marilyn
Sades came to our house and asked for help.
Q – What
kind of help was Marilyn Sades asking for?
A – She
was asking for help because her husband was sh[o]t.
Q – What
time was that when she came to your house?
A – Almost
Q – So,
you mean to say that Marilyn Sades Roga informed you that her husband was
sh[o]t?
A – Yes,
sir.
Q – When
she came to your house what were you doing at that time?
A – I
was lying down, sir.
Q – [Were]
you awake or asleep?
A – I
was sleeping, sir.
Q – How
were you able to know that Marilyn Sades came to your house?
A – I
was awakened by my two children.
Q – You
said that Marilyn Sades was asking for help, f[o]r your help because her
husband was sh[o]t, were you able to help her?
A – I
told her I cannot come because I was sick and I have sore eyes, and my eyes
were swollen.
Q – So,
what did you do when you c[ould not] go with Marilyn Sades Roga to give your
assistance?
A – I
called my two son-in-law including their wives.
x x x x.[4] (Emphasis
supplied)
The trial court rendered judgment[5] finding
appellant guilty of Murder, as follows:
With all these consideration in mind, the
Court finds the accused, FABIAN SADES y Rodel, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubtr
(sic) of the crime of MURDER under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and
hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to indemnify the heirs of the victim the
sum of P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity for the death of Bienvenido Roga;
to pay the offended party the amount of P10,000.00 for the coffin of her
husband and other funeral services; and to pay the costs.
The records will show that the herein accused
has been detained since the time of his arrest on
SO ORDERED.[6]
Appellant assailed the decision of the
trial court on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. He claimed that
Marilyn’s testimony casts serious doubts as to her credibility specially her
positive identification of him as the assailant. He also averred that her testimony was filled
with inconsistencies.
In its Decision[7]
dated
The
sole issue to be resolved in the instant appeal is whether the guilt of the appellant
was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
We
find no reason to depart from the findings of the trial court and the Court of
Appeals. Findings of facts and
assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court
because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and
incommunicable evidence of the witnesses’ deportment on the stand while
testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts.[8] Unless it is shown that the trial court has
overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated certain facts and circumstances
which if considered would have altered the outcome of the case, appellate
courts are bound by the findings of facts of the trial court.[9]
We find no merit in the argument of appellant
that the light coming from the “moron” was insufficient to illuminate the face
of the assailant. It
is settled that when conditions of visibility are favorable, and the witnesses
do not appear to be biased, their assertion as to the identity of the
malefactor should normally be accepted.
Illumination produced by kerosene lamp or a flashlight is sufficient to
allow identification of persons.
Wicklamps, flashlights, even moonlight or starlight may, in proper
situations be considered sufficient illumination, making the
attack on the credibility of witnesses solely on that ground unmeritorious.[10]
Moreover, several circumstances show
that Marilyn could not have missed identifying appellant as the assailant. Dra. Editha D. Hernandez established the
proximity of the assailant when she stated that, when gunpowder is found around
the wound, the firearm would have to be one meter away.[11] In addition, Marilyn testified that she was side
by side with the victim when he was shot by appellant. Also, considering that appellant is her
brother, it is not amiss, to state that he is no stranger to Marilyn. Thus, even if the “moron” lamp was about one
meter away from the door, this circumstance combined with the proximity of the appellant
and Marilyn’s familiarity with him, would enable her to easily recognize him as
the assailant. Consequently, we find no
merit in the argument that it was highly doubtful that Marilyn saw the person
who shot her husband.
Anent
the alleged inconsistencies in Marilyn’s testimonies, i.e., when she pointed to the right side instead of the left side
of her waist to indicate the gunshot wound of her husband, we find the same
minor and inconsequential. It did not in
any way lessen her credibility. Time and
again we have held that minor variances in the details of a witness’s
account, more frequently than not, are badges of truth rather than indicia of
falsehood and they often bolster the probative value of the testimony. Indeed, even the most candid witnesses
oftentimes make mistakes and would fall into confused statements, and at times,
far from eroding the effectiveness of the evidence, such lapses could instead
constitute signs of veracity.[12]
If it appears that the same witness has not
willfully perverted the truth, as may be gleaned from the tenor of his
testimony and the conclusion of the trial judge regarding his demeanor and
behavior on the witness stand, his testimony on material
points may be accepted.[13] Marilyn’s mistake in pointing to the right
side showed her candidness and the fact that she did not rehearse her answers
for the trial.
Likewise, we do not agree with appellant
that it was improbable for Marilyn and the deceased to stand side by side with
a door two feet wide. Marilyn explained
in her cross-examination that:
ATTY. MANALO:
x x x x
Q You
were standing side by side with your husband at the door at the time that your
husband was shot?
A Yes,
sir.
x x x x
Q Where
were you and your husband facing at the time when the shot was fired?
A We
were facing the door.
Q Looking
outside your house?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And
the person who shot your husband was inside?
A He
was inside the house, sir.
Q So,
you were facing the door looking out of your house when the person who shot
your husband, shot him inside the house, is that your testimony?
A Yes,
sir, he was shot inside the house.[14] (Emphasis
supplied)
Marilyn’s testimony showed that she
and her husband were inside the house when the latter was shot. She did not claim that she and the deceased
were at the doorway that was two feet wide.
Furthermore, no ill-motive was
imputed to Marilyn to fabricate the serious charges against appellant who is
her brother. If appellant did not shoot
the deceased, it is against human nature and the presumption of good faith that
Marilyn would falsely testify against him.[15]
The
defense of denial and alibi must fail in light of the clear and positive
identification of appellant as the assailant of the deceased. The positive identification of the assailant,
when categorical and consistent without any ill motive on the part of the
prosecution witnesses, prevails over alibi and denial which
are negative, self-serving and undeserving of weight in law.[16] The defense of denial,
like alibi, is considered with suspicion and is always received with caution,
not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it can
be fabricated easily.[17]
The killing was attended with treachery. There is treachery when the means, methods,
and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to
defend himself or to retaliate; and such means, methods, and forms of execution
were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his
person.[18] What is decisive in an appreciation of
treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible
for the victim to defend himself.[19]
In the case at bar, appellant
surreptitiously entered the house of the deceased at
The
trial court correctly awarded the heirs of the victim, the sum of P50,000.00 by
way of civil indemnity. This award is
mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other
than the commission of the crime.[21] Likewise, the award of P10,000.00 by way of actual
damages is proper to cover the funeral expenses which was substantiated
with receipts.
The Court of Appeals correctly awarded
moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00,[22]
in view of the finding that Marilyn suffered mental anguish and fear because of
the incident.[23] In People v.
Galvez,[24]
this Court stressed that the purpose of the award of moral damages is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but
to compensate them for the injuries to their feelings.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision were 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]
Records, p. 1.
[2]
[3]
TSN,
[4]
TSN,
[5] Rollo, pp. 13-25. Penned by Judge Normelito J. Ballocanag.
[6]
[7]
[8] People v. Suarez, G.R. Nos. 153573-76,
[10] People v. Mansueto, 391 Phil. 611, 628
(2000).
[11]
TSN, Dra. Editha D. Hernandez,
[12] People v. Ortiz,
413 Phil. 592, 602 (2001).
[13] People v. Appegu, 429 Phil. 467, 478
(2002).
[14]
TSN,
[15] People v. Lindo, 442 Phil. 609, 627
(2002).
[16] People v. Loterono, 440 Phil. 268, 280
(2002).
[17] People v. Aliben, 446 Phil. 349, 383
(2003).
[18] People v. Ave, 439 Phil. 829, 853
(2002).
[19] People v. Demate, G.R. Nos. 132310 &
143968-69,
[20] People v.
[21] Nueva España v. People, G.R. No. 163351, June
21, 2005, 460 SCRA 547, 555-556.
[22]
ART. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, and similar injury. Though
incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are
the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission.
[23]
Records, p. 12.
[24]
G.R. No. 130397,