SECOND DIVISION
|
REYNANTE TADEJA, RICKY TADEJA, RICARDO TADEJA and FERDINAND TADEJA, Petitioners, -
versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
G.R. No. 145336
Present:
PUNO, J., Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: July 21, 2006 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
In this petition for review under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, petitioners Reynante, Ricky, Ricardo and Ferdinand,
all surnamed Tadeja, seek the reversal and
setting aside of the Decision[1] dated March 8,
2000 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR No. 21740, as reiterated in its Resolution[2] of September 25,
2000, affirming an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mamburao, Occidental
Mindoro, Branch 44, which found them guilty of the crime of homicide.
The case traces its formal beginning
from an Information filed with the RTC of Mamburao,
Occidental Mindoro charging petitioners, along with Plaridel Tadeja, with the crime of
homicide for the killing of one Ruben Bernardo on the night of
On arraignment, all the accused in the
two (2) related cases entered a plea of “Not Guilty.” With all of them waiving the pre-trial, the
cases were tried jointly.
The incidents leading to the proceedings
before the trial court occurred on the night of
During the joint trial, the prosecution
presented two witnesses, namely: Jacinta
For their part, the Tadejas each
testified on their own behalves. They denied the inculpatory allegations against
them in Criminal Case No. Z-814 and provided an altogether different account of
what supposedly transpired on the night in question. Three of the Tadejas –
Ferdinand, Ricky and Ricardo – interposed alibi as their defense. Several witnesses were presented by the Tadejas in an
effort
to corroborate their tale.
Elaborating on their defense of alibi,
Ferdinand, Ricky and Ricardo claimed that they were at home
watching betamax with their first cousin Tomas Damasco up to around 10:30 or 11:00
o’clock of that fateful night. Thereafter, they went to bed and slept. Later, at about
For his part, Reynante, the alleged
victim of the charge for frustrated homicide in Criminal Case No. Z-815,
declared that at about
As regards Plaridel Tadeja, this accused
declared that it was he who, for no reason at all, was suddenly chased at around
After the joint hearing, the trial court,
finding the prosecution’s witnesses against the Tadejas more credible and
their account more tenable, came out with its decision convicting the Tadejas of the crime of homicide in Criminal Case No. Z-815 and acquitting the brothers Russel and Robenson in Criminal
Case No. Z-815, which was accordingly dismissed.
We quote the decretal portion of the trial court’s decision:
WHEREFORE,
all the accused, Reynante Ferdinand, Plaridel, Ricardo and Ricky, all surnamed
Tadeja are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and are convicted of Homicide
defined and penalized under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code, and are sentenced
to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor,
as minimum to Fourteen (14) years, Eight (8) months and One (10) day of
Reclusion Temporal, as maximum; to indemnify the heirs of the offended party in
the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS, and
to pay the costs.
So Ordered.[3]
With the exception of Plaridel Tadeja, the Tadejas
brothers, Reynante, Ricky, Ricardo and Ferdinand, went on appeal to the CA
claiming that despite the joint trial of the two (2) cases, the trial court
failed to consider the testimonies of the witnesses presented in Criminal Case
No. Z-815, more particularly, the testimonies of Maria Regina
Cortuna and Leticia Bernardo. It is their posture that the testimonies
of said two (2) witnesses bare a major inconsistency with the story of the
prosecution in Criminal Case No. Z-814 and could have entitled them to an acquittal in said
case.
Not finding in the records of the cases any trace
of the testimonies of witnesses Maria Regina Cortuna and Leticia Bernardo,
the CA, in the herein assailed Decision dated
In their motion for reconsideration, the
Tadejas attached the missing transcripts of stenographic notes relative to the testimonies
of the two (2) witnesses aforementioned which the trial court supposedly failed
to consider. Nonetheless, the CA, in its
Resolution of
Undaunted, the Tadeja brothers are now
with this Court via the present
recourse raising the following issues:
1.
Whether the CA erred in failing to reconcile the
testimonies of the witnesses for the Bernardos, which diametrically
contradicted each other on material and substantial matters;
2.
Whether the CA erred in giving credence to the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses Maria Elena Bernardo Almaria and Jacinta
del Fierro;
3.
Whether the CA erred in not appreciating
petitioner's defense of alibi; and
4.
Whether the CA erred in not acquitting the
petitioners on the basis of reasonable doubt.
The petition must have to be denied.
While petitioners are correct in
asserting that the totality of the evidence in Criminal Cases No. 814 and 815 should have
been taken into consideration because the trial thereof was conducted
jointly, the CA cannot be said to have erred in rendering the assailed decision
and
resolution since there was no trace of the missing testimonies in the records.
Furthermore, no matter how anomalous this state of affairs may appear, we agree
with the CA in its denial Resolution[4] that such
testimonies, even if given due consideration, would not alter the trial court’s finding of conviction.
Petitioners contend that the testimony
of defense witness for the Bernardos in Criminal Case No. Z-815, a certain
Regina Cortuna, runs diametrically opposed to the testimonies of Jacinta del Fierro and Maria Elena Bernardo-Almaria, the
prosecution's eye-witnesses in Criminal Case No. Z-814. Petitioners claim that Cortuna's testimony shows that Ruben
Bernardo was completely alone when found wounded. On this score, petitioners argue
that the account of the prosecution’s alleged eye-witnesses, Jacinta del Fierro and Maria Elena Bernardo-Almaria, could not have
been true. Unfortunately, after looking at
the portion of Cortuna's testimony which the petitioners have quoted, the Court itself
does
not see any indication of the alleged contradiction. Nor does a close scrutiny
of the complete transcripts of Cortuna's testimony reveal any such conflict.
Petitioners lay emphasis on the following
excerpts of Cortuna's testimony:
Q When you returned to the
house of your uncle Amado Alfaro, what did you do there?
A At that time, before I
arrived two (2) meters away from the gate I saw a person leaning to [sic] the fence, sir.
Q When you saw that person
leaning to [sic] the fence, what did you do?
A I approached him, sir.
Q When you approached him,
were you able to recognize that person?
A When I approached him, I
recognized him, “Ah si Manong Ruben,” sir.[5]
Nowhere in the afore-quoted testimony of Cortuna did she state that Ruben Bernardo was alone.
Nor is there any indication by her that no one else was around to witness the incident.
Furthermore, petitioners' submission that the testimonies of
Jacinta
del Fierro and Maria Elena Bernardo-Almaria are hardly
believable because the two are relatives of the deceased Ruben Bernardo
cannot hold
water. It is a basic precept that relationship
per se of a witness with
the victim of the crime does not necessarily mean that the witness is biased.[6]
Blood relationship alone does not, by
itself,
impair a witness’ credibility. On the contrary, relationship may even fortify credibility, for
it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely point an accusing
finger at someone other than the actual culprit. The earnest desire to seek
justice for a dead kin is not served should the witness abandon his conscience
and prudence and blame one who is innocent of the crime.[7]
Moreover, petitioners failed to impute
improper or evil motive on the part of either Del Fierro or Bernardo-Almaria to falsely testify
against them. When there is no showing of any improper motive on the part of a prosecution
witness to testify falsely against an accused, the logical conclusion is that
no such improper motive exists and that the testimony is worthy of full faith
and credence.[8]
Indeed, the CA made the following apt
observation:
Besides, accused-appellants also presented
their relatives to testify in their favor, namely: Tomas Damasco, their first
cousin, Maritess Alfaro, their sister, Rex Alfaro, their brother-in-law and
Divino Tadeja, their uncle. Would accused-appellants agree on putting little or
no weight at all to the testimonies of their witnesses just because they are
relatives following the saying that what is sauce for the goose must be the
sauce for the gander?[9]
Petitioners also argue that the CA had erred in not
appreciating the defense of alibi interposed by the brothers Ferdinand,
Ricky and Ricardo. For alibi to prosper, the accused must show that he was so far away from the scene
of the crime that he could not have been physically present thereat at the time the crime was
committed, and that his presence
elsewhere renders it physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. Put differently, for the defense
of alibi to be worthy of credence, one who invokes it must prove that it
was physically impossible for him to be at the situs of the crime at
the time of its commission.
Here, it is not disputed that the Tadejas
and the victim were all residents
of Barangay Talabaan, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro. Neither is it
disputed that the locus of the crime was only about a kilometer away from the house
of the brothers Ferdinand, Ricky and Bernardo where they were allegedly sleeping at the time
the victim Ruben Bernardo was killed.
Given such a distance, the Court sees no physical impossibility for them to be at the
scene of the crime at the time of its commission. The distance would only take
few minutes to traverse.
For sure, the defense of alibi, especially
when corroborated , as here, mainly by
relatives and friends of the accused, ought to be taken with extreme
suspicion, precisely because alibi is easy to fabricate and concoct.[10] It cannot prevail
over clear, direct and positive identification of the accused. The settled rule is that alibi is
the weakest of all
defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove.[11]
Accordingly, the CA properly rejected the brothers’ defense of
alibi,
more so in the light of positive identification by witnesses who have no motive to
falsely testify.
At bottom, the issues raised by the petitioners are
factual in nature. Time and again, the Court has ruled that in cases brought
to it from the CA, its review is limited to errors of law allegedly committed
by that court.[12] The CA is the
final arbiter of questions of fact.[13]
Nonetheless, in the interest of
justice
and bearing in mind that the liberty of the petitioners is at stake, the Court has seen fit
to delve into the records of this case, as well as the transcripts of
stenographic notes of the testimonies of the witnesses presented before the
trial court in the joint trial of Criminal Case No. Z-814
and Criminal Case Z-815. Sadly, after a perusal of these transcripts, the Court is inclined to agree with the CA that there is, indeed, nothing therein to overcome the
positive testimony of the prosecution's eye-witnesses who were found credible
by the trial court.
Where the issues raised on appeal hinge on the credibility of
witnesses, as in this case, the appellate tribunal will accord due respect to the
assessment of facts made by the trial court, said court having the best opportunity, not
only of receiving evidence, but also of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. Even after an inspection of the records of the proceedings before the court of origin, the Court finds it
difficult in arriving at a conclusion that the trial court had erred in its findings
considering the inconsistency between the testimonies of
Reynante and Plaridel as to who was supposedly chased and attacked by the Bernardos. It is clear from an overall examination of the testimonies of all the witnesses
that the prosecution’s version in both cases was indeed the more logical and
straight-forward one, hence more worthy of belief.
Petitioner pleads the Court to acquit them on the basis of reasonable doubt. The conviction,
however, still stands. It must be remembered that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding the possibility of
error, produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.[14] We find that the two courts below had not erred in arriving at a moral certainty as to the guilt
of the petitioners for the offense of homicide charged against them in Criminal
Case No. Z-814.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed
decision and resolution of the CA are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest 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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second
Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, 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.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice
Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (now a member of this Court)
and Salvador J.
[2] Rollo, pp. 66-67.
[3] Rollo, p. 49.
[4] Supra note 2.
[5] Rollo p.17.
[6] People v. Mendoza, G.R. Nos. 109279-80,
[7] People v. Realin, G.R.
No. 126051,
[8] People v. Celis, G.R. Nos. 125307-09,
[9] CA
Decision, see note # 1, Rollo p. 61.
[10] People v. Ocampo, G.R.
No. 80262,
[11] People v. Cortes, G.R.
No. 105010,
[12] Co v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 94979,
[13] Manila
Bay Club Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110015, July 11, 1995,
245 SCRA 715.
[14] Section 2, Rule 133, Rules of Court.