THIRD
DIVISION
|
Petitioner, - versus
- PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 170974 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, CARPIO,* AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is a
Petition for Review on Certiorari
praying for the reversal of the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 26162 dated
The
Information filed against petitioner dated
The undersigned Asst. City Prosecutor
accuses ROMEO SUERTE I. FELIPE of the crime of HOMICIDE committed as follows:
That on or about July 11, 1999, in Pasay
City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above named accused, with intent to kill, did, then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot by means of a firearm one GODOFREDO
ARIATE, thereby, inflicting upon the latter gunshot wounds which caused his
death.[3]
The
prosecution’s version of the
Prosecution
witness Rodolfo Alumbres testified that he was in Bgy. 180, Maricaban,
Godofredo’s
son, William Ariate, and Barangay Chairman Pio Arce witnessed the
incident. Arce, upon arriving at the
scene of the crime, attempted to appease petitioner by shouting, “Romy, ayusin na lang natin ‘to.” Petitioner did not heed Arce’s appeal and
instead fired at Arce. Arce used his .38
caliber revolver to defend himself against petitioner who was then more than
six meters from him. Arce took cover and exchanged fire with petitioner. Petitioner’s companions, Madriago and Jimeno,
also fired at Arce.
Godofredo
was declared dead on arrival at the
Ballistics
examination of the slug revealed that the slug was fired from a .45 caliber
pistol. Bonifacia Casiñas Ariate
presented a marriage contract to prove that she was Godofredo’s lawful
wife. She also presented receipts amounting
to P21,800.00 representing the expenses during Godofredo’s funeral.
Petitioner
had a different version of the events of that night.
Petitioner
testified that it was the deceased, Godofredo Ariate, and his six to seven
companions, which included Pio Arce and William Ariate, who were the unlawful
aggressors that night. Godofredo was
irked when petitioner chided him for cursing and slapping a retarded boy in the
streets. Godofredo and his companions
attacked and repeatedly stabbed petitioner.
Madriago and Jimeno were also attacked by Godofredo’s group. Arce fired at petitioner, Jimeno and Madriago
using a .38 caliber revolver. At this
point, petitioner drew his .45 caliber firearm in self-defense and accidentally
fired it in an upward direction.
Danilo
Villa, a street vendor, came out for the first time to narrate what he
allegedly witnessed on the night of the incident. Villa practically backed up petitioner’s
testimony. He said that he did not
report what he saw to the police, nor did he tell his wife or any of his
relatives about it.
The defense
would have also presented as witness Dr. Roger Archangel, the doctor who
performed surgeries on petitioner, but his testimony was dispensed with as
explained in the trial court’s
(T)he formal taking of the testimony of Dr. Archanghel
was dispensed with after the prosecution agreed that: (1) Dr. Arcanghel was the
one who attended and treated the accused for the injuries he sustained as
reflected in the Medical Records as marked in Exhibits “1”, “1-a”. “1-b”,
“1-c”, “1-d”, “1-e”, “1-f”, “1-g” and “1-h”.
By reason of this stipulation, the testimony of Arcanghel is dispensed
with and the fact, among others, that the accused sustained injuries as shown
in the aforesaid exhibits, now form part of the record of this case as evidence
for the accused.[5]
On
WHEREFORE, accused ROMEO I. SUERTE FELIPE
is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of HOMICIDE.
Accordingly, said accused is hereby
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY
of prision mayor as minimum, to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS of reclusion temporal, as
maximum.
Moreover, said accused is hereby ordered
to pay the heirs of Godofredo Ariate the sum of P50,000.00 as indemnity for the
death of Godofredo Ariate, P21,800.00 as actual damages, and to pay the
costs.[6]
Petitioner
appealed to the Court of Appeals assigning the following as errors:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT IT WAS GODOFREDO ARIATE’S BODY THAT WAS AUTOPSIED BY
DR. LUDOVINO LAGAT;
II.
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE SLUG RECOVERED BY DR. LUDOVINO LAGAT CAME FROM THE
FATAL WOUND THAT KILLED GODOFREDO ARIATE;
III.
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE SLUG RECOVERED BY DR. LUDOVINO LAGAT CAME FROM THE
.45 FIREARM OF THE APPELLANT;
IV.
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN DISMISSING THE TESTIMONY OF APPELLANT AS CONFUSED AND UNBELIEVABLE,
AND THAT OF DANILO VILLA AS THAT OF A PLANTED WITNESS; AND
V.
THE
On
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Pasay city, Branch 117, in Criminal Case No. 00-0182,
convicting appellant Romeo I. Suerte-Felipe of homicide is hereby AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that an additional amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00)
is awarded to the heirs of the victim Godofredo Ariate as moral damages. No pronouncement as to costs.[8]
Petitioner
filed the instant Petition for Review on
Certiorari, raising the following arguments:
I.
THERE IS
REASONABLE
II.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE AUTOPSIED BODY WAS
THAT OF GODOFREDO ARIATE, STILL THERE IS REASONABLE DOUBT THAT PETITIONER IS
GUILTY THERE BEING NO CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE SLUG IN QUESTION WAS RECOVERED
FROM ANY FATAL WOUND THAT CAUSED HIS DEATH.
III.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE SLUG IN QUESTION WAS
RECOVERED IN ANY FATAL WOUND, STILL THERE IS REASONABLE
IV.
THERE IS
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT PETITIONER IS GUILTY SINCE THE CONCLUSION THAT HIS
TESTIMONY IS AS “CONFUSED AS IT IS UNBELIEVABLE”, AND THAT OF HIS WITNESS
DANILO VILLA AS THAT OF A “PLANTED WITNESS” IS CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED FACTS
AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT
V.
THERE IS
REASONABLE
The
arguments presented by both sides concerning the guilt or innocence of
petitioner can be divided into two sets: those concerning physical evidence,
and those concerning testimonial evidence.
We are going to tackle these sets of evidence seriatim.
Physical Evidence
Petitioner
unleashed a three-pronged attack against the physical evidence presented by
respondent. Firstly, petitioner claims
that there is no clear evidence to support the conclusion of the Court of
Appeals that it was Godofredo Ariate’s body that was autopsied by Dr. Ludovino
Lagat. Secondly, petitioner claims that
assuming arguendo that the autopsied
body was that of Godofredo Ariate, there is no clear evidence that the slug in
question was recovered from a fatal wound that caused Godofredo Ariate’s
death. Lastly, petitioner argues that
assuming arguendo that the slug in
question was recovered from a fatal wound, there is no clear evidence that the
same slug came from the .45 firearm of petitioner.
At the
outset, we must stress that while physical evidence ranks very high in our
hierarchy of trustworthy evidence and can be relied upon principally to
ascertain the truth,[10]
presentation thereof is not absolutely indispensable to sustain a
conviction. Petitioner’s stance that the
insufficiency of physical evidence inevitably leads to acquittal is flawed, as
we have, on several occasions, sustained convictions based on purely
testimonial evidence. In the same
manner, guilt beyond reasonable doubt may be produced by the amalgamation of certain
physical and testimonial evidence which, when taken separately, would have been
insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Whether the autopsied body was that of Godofredo
Ariate
Petitioner
claims that a most sedulous reading of Dr. Lagat’s testimony engenders
reasonable doubt since it shows that he himself was uncertain and incompetent
to prove that the body he autopsied was that of Godofredo Ariate. He allegedly admitted that he had no personal
knowledge of who signed the Request for Autopsy[11]
and the Certificate of Identification of Dead Body,[12]
and that no relative of Godofredo was around to identify the body during
autopsy.
Petitioner
further argues that the following facts on record engender reasonable doubt
that it was Godofredo Ariate’s body that was autopsied:
1. Dr. Lagat testified that apart from him, only
the embalmer was around during the autopsy.
But there was no showing whatsoever that the said embalmer knew
Godofredo Ariate personally;
2. The prosecution rested its case without
presenting any representative of the funeral parlor and/or any friend or
relative of Godofredo Ariate, including Godofredo’s son, William Ariate, to
properly identify on the said Request for Autopsy and Certificate of Identification
of Dead Body.
The
pertinent portions of Dr. Lagat’s testimony, cited by petitioner, are as
follows:
Q When
you do conducted medico legal examinations they are always predicated on
written request either by the police agency or any particular person
interested, isn’t it?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And
that request is always in writing?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Among
that, precisely, is your Exhibit “A” where it appears that a certain Eduardo
Ariate signed. I’m showing to you.
A This
is the request I received.
x x x x
Q And
of course, since you did not prepare this it was only referred to you, you do
not know actually the signature appearing there?
A Yes,
Sir.
Q You
did not see him signed (sic)?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And
of course, too, the specimen submitted, since you did not prepare it, you
merely rely [on] what appears here?
A Yes,
sir.
Q In
fact, even the date and place of the alleged incident you don’t have personal
knowledge, of course?
A Yes,
sir.
Q With
respect to Certificate of Identification of Dead Body, do counsel understand
that this is also prepared by Veronica Funeral Parlor?
A Yes,
sir.
Q So
like Exhibit “B”, this could properly be testified to and authenticated by the
personnel of Veronica Funeral Parlor?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Again,
there’s nothing here which indicate that this is officially numbered or marked
by your office?
A Yes,
Sir.
Q Is
it not a fact that documents of this, I’m sure have serial number?
A For
the request and the Certificate of Identification of Dead Body that was
prepared by the funeral parlor accredited by the NBI, we don’t usually put any
identified number.
Q You
again rely on everything stated here, in fact, you cannot tell whose signature
appears here?
A Yes,
sir.
Q You
did not, like Exhibits “A” and “B”, authenticate these after your examination,
in other words, you did not initialed (sic)?
A Yes,
Sir.
x x x x
Q And
of course, at the time you initially conducted whatever examination you are
required under the law, nobody, not even the person who allegedly identified
the body was there, to identify it to you?
A
I was not aware if the person identified is another one.
Q And
you did not required who identified?
A It
was relayed to me that it was the son.
Q
According to whom?
A The
agent of the funeral parlor. That is
according to the request and Certificate of Dead Body.
Q And
that agent of the funeral parlor, may we know, if you come to know the name?
A I
cannot remember the funeral agent during that time.
Q Even
up to now you did not try to verify?
A Yes,
sir.[13]
According
to the Court of Appeals, the records clearly show that the body autopsied and
referred to in the autopsy report of Dr. Ludovino Lagat of the NBI was no other
than that of Godofredo Ariate. The body
submitted for autopsy was identified by Godofredo’s son, Edgardo.[14]
Pictures of Godofredo’s body, taken by Armando Mancera during the autopsy,
likewise establish the identity of the victim.
Moreover, the entries found in the assailed Autopsy Report should be
deemed prima facie evidence of the
facts stated therein, as there had been no proof of any intent on the part of
Dr. Lagat to falsely testify on the identity of the victim’s body.[15]
We do
not find any convincing reason to depart from the findings of the Court of
Appeals. The presentation in evidence of
the Certificate of Identification of Dead Body,[16]
the latter being a public record made in the performance of a duty of officers
in the Medico-Legal Office of the National Bureau of Investigation, is governed
by Rule 132, Sections 19 and 23 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
SEC. 19. Classes of documents.—For the purpose of
their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official
acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public
officers, whether of the
(b) Documents
acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records,
kept in the
All other writings are private.
x x x x
SEC. 23. Public documents as evidence.—Documents
consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a
public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All
other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact
which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.
Thus, entries
in the Certificate of Identification of Dead Body are deemed prima facie evidence of the facts stated
therein, i.e., that a body has been
properly identified as that of Godofredo Ariate. This prima
facie evidence of identification cannot be rebutted by an extremely meticulous
fault-finding inquiry into the chain of custody of the body of the victim, as
such body cannot be easily replaced or substituted by ill-minded persons. What petitioner is asking of us is not to be
sedulous anymore, but to be paranoid and unreasonably mistrustful of the
persons whom our very rules require us to trust. Petitioner’s criticism of the identification
of the body of the victim miserably fails to inject any reasonable doubt in our
minds, not when petitioner is even loath to say that the body autopsied was not
that of Godofredo Ariate but that of some other person.
We
must stress at this point that there was no indication of any impropriety or
irregularity committed by the medico-legal officer in this case with respect to
the autopsy on the body of the late Godofredo Ariate. Dr. Lagat’s duty was to perform the autopsy
and not to obsessively investigate the authenticity of the signature appearing
on all requests presented to him. Thus,
Dr. Lagat, as a medico-legal officer, enjoys the presumption of regularity in
the performance of his duties.
Whether petitioner fired the bullet that caused the
death of Godofredo Ariate
On
petitioner’s argument that the slug recovered from the victim’s body did not
come from the second but from the third wound of Godofredo, the Court of
Appeals presented its observation that both the second and the third wounds
sustained by Godofredo were fatal, as both involved vital organs such as the
intestines and the liver.[17] Either wound, thus, could have caused the
death of the victim.
Petitioner
argues that this is “pure and simple speculation,” for “there is nothing on
record that wound number three, despite affecting the intestines and liver,
could have caused death.”[18] Petitioner also presented the following
related testimonies:
(1)
Dr. Lagat admitted
uncertainty on the following:
a.
Which of the 3
wounds was inflicted first and which caused [the] death;
b.
Whether said
wounds were caused by 3 weapons, or just by the same gun; and
c.
The caliber of
the gun[s] that may have been used; these cannot be determined based solely on
the appearance or nature of said wounds;
(2)
SPO3 Danico
Unico’s testimony that the Scene of the Crime Operatives (SOCO) also recovered
another slug at the scene of the crime, which was brought to the SPD
headquarters for ballistic examination, but he was never informed of the test
result;
(3)
Rodolfo Alumbres’
written statement that he saw not only petitioner, but also Eduardo Jimeno and Edison Madriago, shooting at
Godofredo; and
(4)
The following testimony
of NBI Ballistician Rodolfo Bilgera, to wit:
a.
The [ballisticians]
could not determine what particular .45 gun the slug in question came from
until said gun is examined and compared with the slug.
b.
Whether they were
caused by three weapons, or by the same gun;
c.
The caliber of
the guns used, which cannot be determined based solely on the appearance or
nature of the wounds.[19]
On the
issue of whether the slug that was recovered from the victim’s body came from
the .45 caliber firearm of petitioner, the Court of Appeals reiterated the
observation of the RTC that the ballistics examination of the subject slug
revealed a diameter and a set of riflings which were peculiar to a .45 caliber
pistol.[20] Petitioner was admittedly the only one
holding a .45 caliber gun at the time of the incident. His two companions, Madriago and Jimeno, were
each armed with a 9mm firearm, while Arce was holding a .38 caliber
revolver. Furthermore, Godofredo had a
heated argument before Godofredo was shot. Thus, it was petitioner who had the motive to
kill Godofredo.
Petitioner
notes that Dr. Lagat himself refused to confirm that the slug he recovered was
the same slug submitted for examination.
His testimony reads:
Atty. Ferancullo
Q You
stated doctor, that you referred the slug to the Ballistics Division of the NBI
and you handed and identified Exhibit “G,” (later changed to Exh. “Y”), my
question Doctor is that, do you know whose signature above the name Ludovino
Lagat?
A It
was signed for, by Mr. Mansera, in my behalf.
Q Can
you explain to us why it was signed for and in your behalf by Mr. Mancera?
A Because
I instructed him to submit the slug to the ballistician.
Q Since
you were not the one who signed the request, do you affirm and confirm the
veracity of the contents of the letter, now you handed to this representation?
Atty. Llamas:
He
will be incompetent, Your Honor, because he was not the one who even signed the
indorsement.
Court:
What’s the question again?
Sten:
(
Court:
Witness
may answer.
Witness:
I
cannot tell whether this slug submitted was taken from the cadaver, Mr. Mansera can testify more on
that.
x x x x
Atty. Llamas to the witness:
Q You
sated very categorically that this transmittal of the slug was made by Man[c]era
and that you cannot be sure whether the slug referred to herein is the same
slug taken from the cadaver, do you re-affirm that answer of yours?
A Yes,
Sir.[21]
According
to petitioner, Mansera expressed similar incompetence and uncertainty in the
following testimony:
Q This
letter, Mr. witness, refers to one (1) slug, extracted from the body of one, Godofredo
Ariate, what did you do to that slug?
A What
I did Sir, was I put the slug in the plastic bag and then put the number in the
plastic bag and then brought it to the Firearm Division, Sir.
Q If
that plastic bag containing the case number that you placed will be shown to
you, will you be able to recognize it Mr. Witness?
A Yes,
Sir.
Q How
about the bullet you placed inside the plastic bag, will you be able to
recognize the same?
A No
sir, only if it still contained in the plastic bag, Sir.[22]
Petitioner
argues that the private prosecutor negligently ended his examination of Mansera
without even trying to show and ask him to identify the slug inside or outside
the plastic bag referred to. As a
result, there was no testimonial confirmation that the slug recovered during
the autopsy was the same slug that was examined and determined to be the .45
bullet. Without such confirmation under
oath, it was utterly baseless to conclude that the slug in question came from
petitioner’s gun, since it was that of a .45 caliber firearm, which only the
accused has.
Petitioner
also argues that the attribution solely to petitioner of the motive to kill was
uncalled for. Even though Eduardo Jimeno
and Edison Madriago had no previous quarrel with Godofredo Ariate, prosecution
witness Alumbres himself allegedly stated in his written statement that he had
seen not only petitioner, but also Jimeno and Madriago, firing at Godofredo
Ariate. The probability that Jimeno and
Madriago were the actual killers could not be diminished by the fact that their
guns were 9mm Berretas, since no slug was recovered from the fatal wound number
two.
The Court
of Appeals ruled that the family of the victim, William Ariate in particular
who witnessed the shooting, could not have allowed a situation where the wrong
man was being made to answer for the death of his father. Petitioner counters that prosecution witness
Pio Arce testified that William, after the shooting, attacked and stabbed, not
petitioner, but one of the policemen who was with petitioner at that time,
notwithstanding that said policemen had no quarrel with his father.[23]
In
determining the sufficiency of the physical evidence to prove that petitioner
fired a fatal bullet which killed Godofredo Ariate, an examination of the
following findings of Dr. Lagat in Autopsy Report No. N-99-832 is in order:
POSTMORTEM FINDINGS
Postmortem rigidity, complete, generalized.
Pallor, generalized.
Gunshot Wounds.
1.) ENTRANCE 2.0 x 1.4 cm; oval; inverted edges;
abrasions collar widest at the inferior border; located at the outer portion of
the right arm; 16.0 cm. below the elbow; directed upward medially; involving
the skin and underlying soft tissues; fracturing the ulna and radius; then
making an EXIT 2.0 x 1.5 cm.; irregular in shape; everted edges; located at the
inner aspect of the same arm; 7.0 cm. below the elbow.
2.) ENTRANCE 1.0 x 1.1 cm.; oval; inverted edges;
abrasion collar widest at the inferior border; inverted edges; located at the
right flank (posterior axillary line); 25.0 cm. of the anterior median line and
108.0 cm. from the right heel; directed forward, upward and medially; involving
the skin and underlying soft tissues; entering the peritoneal cavity; involving
the intestines and liver; then making an EXIT 2.0 x 2.0 cm.; irregular in
shape; everted edges; located at the left upper quadrant of the abdomen; 15.0
cm. from the anterior median line and 117.0 cm. above the left heel.
3.) 0.9 x 1.1 cm.; oval inverted edges; abrasion
collar at the upper portion, located at the epigastric area, 105.50 cm. from
the right heel; directed backward, downward and to the right; involving the
skin and soft tissues; involving the stomach, liver and intestines, then
the slug lodged at the right gluteal region; 85.0 cm. from the right heel.
Visceral organs – pale.
Hemoperitoneum – 1,200 c.c.
Stomach ½ full of partially digested food particles.
CAUSE OF DEATH:
GUNSHOT
WOUNDS, BODY.
REMARKS: One
(1) slug recovered and submitted to Firearms and Investigation Division for
Ballistics examination.[24]
Indeed, Dr.
Lagat testified that he recovered a slug in wound number three[25]
and not in wound number two as stated in the RTC Decision. However, despite the error committed by the
trial court in describing the location where the slug was recovered, there is
no factual basis for petitioner’s contention that wound number three is not a
fatal wound. As shown above, wound
number three involves the stomach, liver and intestines.[26]
While Dr. Lagat did not testify that
wound number three (or wounds number one and two for that matter) was fatal, we
believe that it is safe to conclude that wounds number two and three were probably fatal, involving as they
did vital parts of the body. This is an
example of a circumstantial evidence, which is distinguished from direct
evidence as follows:
Direct evidence is that which proves the
fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption; (Lack County vs. Neilon, 44 Or. 14, 21, 74 P.
212) while circumstantial evidence is the proof of fact or facts from
which, taken either singly or collectively, the existence of a particular fact
in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence (State vs. Avery, 113 Mo. 475, 494, 21 S.W.
193; Reynolds Trial Ev., Sec. 4, p. 8)[27]
While we
therefore agree with petitioner that the above physical evidence does not
conclusively prove that petitioner fired the bullet which killed Godofredo
Ariate, we should find out whether the above circumstantial evidence presented
by the prosecution can prove the controverted fact beyond reasonable doubt if
considered together with other evidence presented. Thus, Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of
Court provides:
SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.—Circumstantial
evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences
are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
While we
shall deal with the credibility of the witnesses later, it is important to note
at this point that Alumbres testified that it was petitioner who fired
first. According to Alumbres, he was
four-arms length away from Godofredo Ariate who was then face to face with
petitioner. Alumbres saw Godofredo
Ariate arguing with petitioner, when suddenly, petitioner cocked his gun and
shot Godofredo at pointblank range.[28]
Connecting
this testimony to the autopsy report, we observe that it was wound number three
that was inflicted frontally. The entry
point of gunshot wound number three is the area midway along the lower portion of
the chest and the upper area of the stomach directed downwards. On the other hand, wound number two entered
into the right flank (posterior auxiliary line) and exited at the left upper
quadrant of the abdomen. The prosecution
posits that this may have been the next shot that hit Godofredo, and the impact
must have occurred while body twisted toward the left after receiving wound
number three. The prosecution thinks
that wound number one may have been the third gunshot wound. It is the one located at the outer portion of
the right arm below the elbow and may have been inflicted while Godofredo was
falling face down because the entry wound was 16 centimeters below the elbow
and it exited higher at only seven centimeters below the elbow. While the trajectory of the bullet was upward
from the lower portion of the arm below the elbow, it could have been fired
downward while the arm below the elbow was raised in a defensive position.
While there
is some doubt as to which between wounds number one and two was the second
wound inflicted and which of them was the third, the position (the area midway along the lower portion of the
chest and the upper area of the stomach directed downwards) of wound number three (where the .45 bullet was found) is perfectly compatible with
Alumbres’ testimony on petitioner’s first shot against Godofredo Ariate, which
first shot was fired at pointblank
range. It also makes the version
of petitioner (that he accidentally fired the gun upwards) very unlikely.
The
uncertainty of Dr. Lagat as to whether the above wounds were caused by three
weapons or by just one weapon and as to the caliber of the firearms used does
not in any way make us doubt his statements.
Dr. Lagat is not competent to answer questions on such area, as his expertise
is in the field of medical ballistics which Dr. Lagat stated “pertains to the
injury sustained by the victim.”[29] Dr. Lagat further explained that it is the
job of the ballistician to determine the nature and caliber of the firearm and
ammunition used in the shooting.[30]
Likewise
unavailing is petitioner’s anticipation that reasonable doubt would come from
the statement of SPO3 Danilo Unico (that there was another slug recovered at
the crime scene which was brought to the Southern Police District Headquarters
for ballistic examination, the results of which was allegedly never revealed to
him). SPO3 Unico is to be blamed for the
fact that the results were never revealed to him. This is shown by the following lapses that
SPO3 Unico committed: (1) the investigation report dated 12 August 1999 that he
prepared, signed and thereafter submitted to the Chief of Police of the Pasay
City Police Office[31]
never mentioned the fact that he had allegedly recovered evidence at the crime
scene and submitted the same for ballistic examination; (2) SPO3 Unico never
showed in court any document purporting that he recovered any bullet slug; (3)
SPO3 Unico did not present in court any written request for ballistic
examination; (4) despite being a seasoned investigator, SPO3 Unico did not even
bother to follow up the results of the alleged ballistic examination:
Q Was
a ballistic examination conducted?
A Yes,
your honor.
Q What
was the result?
A It
is not yet –
Q You
did not bother to get a result before turning over your case to the
prosecution? Or filing a referral letter to the prosecutor’s office? You think you have completely turn over your
case to the prosecutor’s office?
A: Since
nobody told me to prepare a report.
Anyway, I can get a result, your Honor.
Q: You
should have done that before filing a letter of referral to the prosecutor’s
office. Because the prosecutor can only
be as good as the possessors of evidence turned over to him. He cannot more foolish than the – he cannot
add more ingredients of what was turned over to him. The prosecutor is only make good of what is
turned over to him. If the police submit
to him a handwash then he have a handwash to a case x x x.[32]
Petitioner
stresses that Alumbres had testified that he saw petitioner, PO3 Jimeno and PO3
Madriaga shooting at the victim. However,
during the same cross-examination, Alumbres categorically stated that the first
shot came from petitioner as he fired at Godofredo Ariate at pointblank
range. Hence, he testified:
Q And
since the firing was so sudden, you cannot tell whose gun or whose shot fired
first at Ariate?
A The first
shot came from Romeo Suerte’s gun.
Q That
is how you surmised it?
A That’s
what I know, sir.[33]
Petitioner
claims that the trial court erred in holding that the slug came from petitioner’s
gun in light of the purported testimony of Rodolfo Bilgera that he cannot
determine that the particular .45 slug came from petitioner’s gun. However, the records are clear that the reason
why Bilgera was never able to compare the slug in question is that petitioner
never turned over his gun to the NBI’s Firearms and Investigation Division
(FID). Thus, Rodolfo Bilgera testified that
the gun was never submitted to the FID for ballistic examination. Bilgera had to compare the rifling of the .45
caliber slug recovered from the body of Godofredo Ariate with the rifling that petitioner’s
.45 caliber handgun makes.[34] Without petitioner’s gun, the ballistician
cannot make such a comparison. The
ballistician can only determine the caliber of the firearm used based on
rifling of the recovered bullet slug.[35] Bilgera cannot determine that the slug
recovered came from appellant’s handgun.
Petitioner
claims that his failure to produce the gun was not an excuse, as Bilgera could
have looked into the FID’s records for comparison purposes, but did not did not
make any effort to look into their office records for any .45 caliber slug that
would match the .45 caliber slug recovered from Godofredo Ariate’s body. However, Bilgera testified that he cannot
definitely rely on such records. A
ballistician can make a definite conclusion only after the firearm is submitted
for the ballistic examinations.[36]
As
regards the loss of the petitioner’s gun, petitioner explains the same in the
part of the testimony where he also admits that his gun was a .45 caliber
pistol:
ATTY. FERANCULLO
Q: For
clarification, the gun that you had at that time when the incident occur is a
.45 caliber pistol, is that correct?
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x x
Q: This
.45 caliber handgun of yours, if this license to your name, Mr. Witness?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: The
Serial Number of this .45 caliber is 91139 and this is a .45 caliber Nurinco?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Did you bring it with you now that
.45 caliber, Mr. Witness?
A: No,
sir.
Q: Why
did you not bring it now, Mr. Witness?
A: The
gun was missing when I fell down and lost my consciousness.
Q: Are
you certain, Mr. Witness, with your answer that the firearm, that the .45
caliber gun of yours is missing and that you did not sell it?
A: I
cannot recall anything when I fell down I do not know what happened so, I do
not know whether it was missing or it was sold.
Q: You
did not sell it?
A: No
sir, I did not sell it because it was missing.
Q: Did
you execute an Affidavit of Loss to the effect that your gun was missing?
A: No,
sir, because I was in the hospital that’s why I have no time to declare the
loss of my firearm, what I know is that its missing.
Q: So
up to now, you have not executed an Affidavit of Loss, have it forwarded to the
Firearms and Explosives Division of the PNP?
A: No,
not yet.[37]
While
Bilgera could not determine that the particular .45 slug came from petitioner’s
gun, Bilgera was certain that the slug recovered and examined was a slug coming
from a .45 caliber gun. This is shown in
Bilgera’s testimony:
ATTY. FERANCULLO
Q: Mr.
Witness, Mr. Flores stated in this report, marked as Exhibit “W”, Findings/Conclusion
which I quote: “Examination made on the
bullet marked as “GA”, revealed that it is a caliber .45 copper coated with
bullet and was fired through the barrel of a caliber .45 firearm which rifling
inclining to the left.” How did your
group, five ballisticians of the NBI, arrived at the conclusion that the bullet
referred to FID for examination by Dr. Lagat was fired from a caliber .45
firearm?
A: Because this bullet was designed from a
.45 caliber firearm.[38]
Petitioner
himself admitted owning a .45 caliber pistol that was allegedly lost at the
time of the shooting. At the time of the
shooting, only petitioner was observed carrying a loaded .45 caliber pistol.
Finally,
just as petitioner questioned the chain of custody of the body of Godofredo
Ariate, petitioner also claims that there is no convincing evidence that shows
that the slug recovered from wound number three by Dr. Lagat and thereafter
submitted for ballistic test was the same slug submitted to and examined by Bilgera.
As
stated above, it is not the task of the medico-legal officer to determine the
caliber of the weapon used in the shooting; it is the job of the ballistician
based on the slug that was recovered from the body of the victim. After Dr. Lagat recovered the slug while
performing the autopsy of the late Godofredo Ariate, he instructed Armando
Mancera to place the recovered slug inside a plastic sachet and to mark the
sachet. Armando Mancera followed Dr.
Lagat’s instructions by placing the slug inside the sachet and marking said
plastic sachet with the initials N-99-832.[39] Mancera and Dr. Lagat thereafter prepared
the letter-request dated
TO: F.I.D.
Respectfully
submitted the ff: (1) one slug extracted from the body of one GODOFREDO ARIARTE
y de Ocampo, 57 yrs., married, carpenter, Res. # 39 Bo.
CASE NO: N-99-832
Alleged
Case: Shooting
For analysis and/or test as follows:
For
ballistic examination.
Mancera
later on testified regarding the circumstances surrounding the recovery and
marking of the recovered slug:
ATTY. FERRANCULO
Q: Mr.
Witness, when Dr. Ludovino Lagat testified before this Honorable Court, he
identified [a] letter dated
A: My
signature, Sir.
Q: And
how about the signature beside the name Ludovino Lagat and atop the name
Armando Mancera, do you know whose signature is that?
A: My
signature, Sir.
Q: Mr.
Witness, please explain to the Honorable Court the reason why instead of Dr.
Lagat affixing his signature atop his name, your initial is the one now
appearing atop his name?
A: Because
after the conducted autopsy Sir, Dr. Lagat left Sir, so I was the one who
initialed them sir.
Q: And
who prepared this letter, Mr. Witness?
A: Me,
Sir.
Q: And
who instructed you to prepare this letter?
A: Dr.
Lagat, Sir.
x x x x
Q: This
letter, Mr. Witness, refers to one (1) slug, extracted from the body of one,
Godofredo Ariate, what did you do to that slug?
A: What
I did sir, was I put the slug in the plastic bag and then put the number in the
plastic bag and then brought it to the Firearm Division, Sir.
Q: If
that plastic bag containing the case number that you placed will be shown to
you, will you be able to recognize it, Mr. Witness?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: How
about the bullet you placed inside the plastic bag, will you be able to
recognize the same again?
A: No
sir, only if it still contained in the plastic bag, Sir.
Q: Mr.
Witness, I’m showing to you a plastic bag containing markings N-99-832
previously marked in evidence as Exhibit “X-1”, will you please examine this
plastic bag and tell the Honorable Court the relationship of this plastic bag
you said you placed the markings, the case number?
A: This
is the one, Sir.
x x x x
Q: Mr.
Witness, this letter you typed is addressed to FID, what is your proof that
this letter was received by the FID?
A: There
is a stamp received, Sir.[41]
The
above clearly shows that per instruction of Dr. Lagat, Armando Mancera placed
an identifying mark (N-99-832) on the sachet where the slug was placed before
he sent the slug to the FID of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for
ballistic examination. Through said
marking, Mancera positively identified during the trial that the slug he had brought
to the NBI for ballistic examination was the same slug that was recovered by
Dr. Lagat from the body of Godofredo Ariarte.
Testimonial Evidence
The Court
of Appeals observed that the remaining assigned errors boiled down to the issue
of credibility of the witnesses presented in court. The Court of Appeals applied the settled rule
that factual findings of the trial court especially on the credibility of
witnesses are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on
appeal inasmuch as the matter of assigning values to the testimonies of
witnesses is a function best performed by the trial court, which can weigh said
testimony in the light of the witness’ demeanor, conduct and attitude during
the trial.
Petitioner
challenges said ruling by claiming that this case falls under at least one of
the exceptions where a review of the factual findings of the trial court is
warranted.
The trial
court’s evaluation of the testimonies of the defense witnesses is as follows:
For his defense, the accused cannot seem
to make up whether to interpose self-defense, or to altogether deny any
participation in the shooting to death of Godofredo Ariate. He is loath to say that he shot Ariate
accidentally, yet, his testimony is also abundant with overtures that if he did
shot Ariate, it was purely accidental.
Consequently, the testimony of the accused is as confused as it is
unbelievable.
Accused alleges that Godofredo Ariate and
Rodolfo Alumbres together with about eight people walked up to him and
repeatedly stabbed him on his back; Pio Arce followed by shooting him. Armed with a 45 cal. pistol as he was,
accused admitted having drawn it from his waistline. Having thus drawn the gun, one reasonably
expects that accused will fire his gun at his supposed attackers in legitimate
retaliation and self-preservation. But
that is not so. After being stabbed and
shot, he would have this court believe that he drew his gun and fired it – not
at anybody – but only as a warning shot.
For this court, that act of the accused is
unbelievable. But the accused has an
altogether different concern. He thought
the act of deliberately firing his gun under this life-and-death situation that
he has conjured would place him in bad light.
So, he made an abrupt turn-around and say things that he hoped would
place him in good light. Thus, he
alleges that he merely “accidentally pulled the trigger and fired his gun
upwards”; he had “no intention of firing it”, “there was no instance that he
pointed his gun at any of his attackers”.
Yet, in no time at all, accused negated
his own protestation as a passive prey when he asseverated that “he drew his
gun for self-defense”. The court wonders
how he could draw the gun and use it in self-defense if he intends to fire only
a warning shot, or, maybe, a shot in the air.
How could he prevent his attackers from further attacking him if he
simply draws his gun and but not aim it at any of them, or if he was content
with merely drawing his gun without intention of firing it or pulling its
trigger? The court is not persuaded by
such an unnatural and abnormal human conduct.
The court is inclined to believe what is natural, normal and consistent
with the common experience of humankind.
The accused did not only draw his gun, nor did he accidentally pull its
trigger and fire it upwards. While
Alumbres and Arce cannot be believed in other aspects of their testimony, the
court is fully convinced with their positive identification of the accused as
the killer of Godofredo Ariate.
Danilo Villa, the lone witness accused
called to corroborate his mongrelized defense theory of
denial/self-defense/accident, carries the earmarks of a planted witness. He said he witnessed the incident when the
accused – his “Pareng Romy” – was repeatedly stabbed and shot on
Then, all of a sudden, a week before he
testified in court on
If the accused is a friend to Villa as the latter
would like to impress upon this court, it is normal human conduct for Villa to
share with the accused in the many conversations they had what he
witnessed. The accused for his part,
will just be too happy to find in Villa not just a friend, but someone who sees
the July 11 incident the way he wants this court to see it: that he is either completely innocent, or
that he shot Ariate in legitimate self-defense, or that his shooting of Ariate
was pure accident. Then he could have,
with anxious anticipation of justice being done, preserved the testimony of
Villa, and utilize it as early as the preliminary investigation stage of this
case. But the accused did not.
That
Villa didn’t say a word to the accused about the July 11 incident and the
accused never cared to illicit from Villa any knowledge he may have about said
incident, only shows that Villa knows nothing of his own personal knowledge
about it.[42]
Petitioner
claims that his testimony was not at all “confused” or “unbelievable,” but was
simply either misunderstood or taken out of context. He claims that “far from being ‘mongrelized’
(his) claim of self-defense, accident and lack of participation is a factual
admixture, the components of which, taken singly or jointly, are clear and
credible.”
According
to petitioner, when he said he drew his gun for self-defense, he never claimed
that he was able to effectively proceed to defend himself with his gun. Quoting his testimony, petitioner clarified
that what he stated was that he was “not able to fire a warning shot” and had “no
chance to aim (his) gun” because after drawing his gun and trying to aim it, he
“accidentally pulled the trigger and fired upwards,” not only because he was “so
weak and about to faint” but also because “somebody suddenly stabbed (him) at (his)
back.” Petitioner argues that his
testimony cannot be doubted, for it is undisputed that he suffered wounds at
the front, side and back of his body, including his legs and the lower part of
his stomach.
Petitioner
claims that contrary to the trial court’s observation, he intended to aim and
shoot the gun directly at his attackers.
He was, however, not able to have a decent shot because of the frenzy of
the moment and the numerous wounds he sustained. Thus, petitioner claims it was baseless and
irresponsible for the trial court to say that he had no intention of firing his
gun.
Petitioner
also claims that the judge was biased, based on the fact that out of the 256
questions asked of the petitioner, the trial judge propounded 84 questions or
around one-third of the total; while of the 188 questions thrown to defense
eyewitness Danilo Villa, 107 questions or almost three-fifths of the total came
from the trial judge.
As regards
the testimony of Danilo Villa, petitioner claims that the trial court’s rejection
of his testimony “just because Villa failed to report what he saw to the
authorities until the week he testified in court” is capricious and injudicious. Petitioner claims that Villa had sufficiently
explained his silence in testifying that (1) fear had prevented him from
reporting to the authorities, and that (2) lack of knowledge of the ongoing
prosecution prevented him from telling petitioner what he knows.
As regards the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, petitioner found the trial court’s giving credence to
the same as “anomalous,” since, according to petitioner, “the trial court
itself lambasted Alumbres and Arce and their respective testimonies.” Petitioner quoted several parts of the trial
court’s Decision on its criticisms of these testimonies:
(1)
“there are loose
ends in the(ir) testimony”;
(2)
“as dramatis personae of this bloody human
drama, they will try mighty hard to free themselves from any blame and portray
themselves in the best possible light they can conjure”; and
(3)
“they leave
something to be desired in their effort to project themselves as innocent babes
and level-headed guardians of peace”[43]
Petitioner
claims that the testimonies of Alumbres and Arce are full of exaggerations,
falsehoods and inconsistencies. On the
part of Alumbres, petitioner alleges that:
(1) When asked about his work, he claimed he is a
“laborer.” But to justify his presence
at the scene of the incident that night of
(2) Alumbres claimed that he was standing beside an
alley in Brgy. 180 when he “saw” his “friend” Godofredo talking with petitioner
who was with policemen Jimeno and Madriago, and that as he looked again, he
“saw” petitioner and even Jimeno and Madriago firing at Godofredo. On cross-examination, however, he admitted
not seeing the alleged shooting, but merely hearing gunshots (putukan), so “inalam niya”, that is, he “came near to check who was the gun
holder.” With this admission, he belied
his earlier claim that he saw Godofredo talking with petitioner and the
petitioner shooting at Godofredo;
(3) Alumbres
claimed that he saw Godofredo and petitioner talking, but did not hear their
conversation. He later claimed that he
heard their conversation, but did not know if they were quarreling. Then in the end of his examination, he
admitted having heard the conversation between Godofredo and petitioner before
the shooting and it was about Raymond, a mentally retarded boy whom petitioner
earlier protected by stopping Godofredo’s maltreatment of him;
(4) Alumbres at
first said that he saw only the petitioner shooting at Godofredo, then he
changed his mind and said that he saw not only petitioner, but also Jimeno and
Madriago firing at Godofredo;
(5) Alumbres
described appellant as his “long time acquaintance”, but he later contradicted
himself by saying that petitioner may not know him, and that after the
shooting, he had to ask around about petitioner’s work;
(6) Alumbres
called Jimeno and Madriago as petitioner’s policemen “alalay,” but it turned out
that Jimeno and Madriago were not petitioner’s “alalay” but co-employees at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport,
and that Alumbres did not even know their names at the time of the incident;
(7) When shown
a sketch of the scene of the accident, he immediately claimed inability to see
because “malabo and mata ko”, but he
in no time proceeded to recognize, described and even helped mark certain
places indicated in the sketch;
(8) He belied
his claim of weak eyesight when he boldly claimed having seen the bullets of
the policemen that were meant for him hit the wall of a house.
(9) Alumbres also
stressed that three (3) shots were fired at him: the first shot came from petitioner and (h)it
him, while the second and third shots, which came from Jimeno and Madriago, hit
the wall of a house. Later, he stated
that four (4) shots were fired at him:
“Romeo (petitioner) fired his gun twice, the two policemen, one each”,
and petitioner’s first shot missed him, but his second shot hit his right leg.[44]
Petitioner claims that Pio Arce’s
contradictions are as follows:
(1) When asked if he remembered anything unusual that
happened that night of
(2) Arce denied any knowledge of petitioner being
attacked and wounded.[45]
Petitioner also claims that Arce’s
and Alumbres’ testimonies contradict each other:
(1) According
to Alumbres, petitioner had already shot him and Godofredo when Arce
arrived. But Arce contradicted Alumbres,
saying that when he arrived at the scene he saw petitioner loudly quarreling
yet with Godofredo, and so he talked to petitioner but petitioner fired at him,
and then he saw petitioner firing at Godofredo and later at Alumbres;
(2) Alumbres
claimed that when Arce arrived, the latter shouted “Romy, tama na yan, bagsak na yang dalawa”. On the other hand, Arce claimed to have
shouted only the following “Romy, ayusin na
lang natin ito.”;
(3) Alumbres
claimed that when Arce arrives, the latter fired a warning shot. But Arce never claimed he fired any warning
shot;
(4) Alumbres
claimed that Arce brought him and Godofredo to the hospital. But Arce claimed that he merely shouted for
people to bring Godofredo and Alumbres to the hospital then he left the scene
immediately; and
(5) Alumbres
claimed (though he later made a modification) that before the shooting, he
saw/heard appellant and Godofredo merely talking, but he did not know if they
were quarreling as he was about three full arms length away. On the other hand, Arce claimed that as soon
as he arrived he saw petitioner loudly arguing with Godofredo.[46]
Petitioner finally decries the “deafening
silence” of Alumbres and Arce on the established fact that it was petitioner who
was attacked and, hence, had many wounds.
Alumbres never mentioned any stabbing; he knew only the gunshot wound
petitioner sustained. In the case of
Arce, he never saw any stabbing attack on petitioner.
The credibility of the witnesses of the defense and the prosecution
We
have held that the trial judge is the best and the most competent person who
can weigh and evaluate the testimonies of witnesses.[47] Likewise, the trial court is in the best
position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies
because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses, their demeanor,
conduct and attitude on the witness stand.[48]
Hence, other than the
reasons expressly stated by the trial court in its Decision, the witnesses’
demeanor, conduct and attitude on the witness stand were also taken in account
by the court. This is particularly
relevant in cases such as this, where different interpretations can be had of
the same set of testimonies. Indeed, if
petitioner’s testimony is interpreted the way he explains it now before us, his
story can be adjudged consistent.
But whether the trial
court believes what petitioner says is another thing. For example, it is indeed possible that petitioner just happened
to meet and greet Jimeno (who denied[49]
knowing petitioner) and Madriago, who were both armed, while going home, and
just as they were about to be accosted by the group of Godofredo. It is possible
that petitioner indeed lost his gun at the time of the incident and merely
refrained from reporting its loss even after he was discharged from the
hospital. For Villa’s part, its is also possible that he only informed
petitioner of what he knew in the week of his testimony, because he only came
to know of the homicide charge in the same week. But it is not enough for petitioner to show
that these were all possible; he must likewise convince the Court that these were
what indeed happened, particularly in this case where testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses were found credible.
Petitioner’s claims that he and Villa “adequately explained” certain
lapses, or that their testimonies were “believable” are but a self-serving
evaluation of the testimonies of his own witnesses.
In the same way, the
physical evidence consisting of the injuries suffered by petitioner does not
necessarily convert the “mongrelized claim of self-defense, accident and lack
of participation” into one of a “factual admixture” brought about by
petitioner’s state of mind when he drew and fired his gun. The wounds could have been inflicted after
petitioner shot Godofredo, a factual scenario rendered probable by the physical
evidence consisting of the position of Godofredo’s wound number three. As discussed earlier, the entry
point of Godofredo’s wound number three, which was probably the first wound
inflicted, was the area midway along the lower portion of the chest and the
upper area of the stomach directed downwards.
It is likely that this was inflicted at pointblank range by someone not
“so weak and about to faint.”
We are not naïve to feign
ignorance that both sets of witnesses – those of the prosecution and the
defense – have something to hide. There
was something more to the incident than either group is letting us on. That was why the trial court stated that
there were loose ends in the prosecution’s testimony, and that they “will try
mightily hard to free themselves from any blame and portray themselves in the
best possible light they can conjure.” Thus,
a lot of unanswered questions remain, including the number of wounds inflicted
on petitioner and Godofredo, and the injury of Alumbres. Just as Alumbres and Arce were silent on the
wounds sustained by petitioner, defense witnesses likewise had nothing to say
on the wounds of Godofredo and Alumbres.
However, despite these unanswered questions, we agree with the trial
court that the prosecution had been “forthright and consistently credible in
positively identifying the accused as the one who shot Godofredo Ariate to
death.”
As regards the alleged
inconsistencies in the testimonies of Alumbres and Arce, we find these
“inconsistencies” either trivial or readily explainable. Those alleged inconsistencies that can easily
be explained are the following:
(1) There is
clearly no inconsistency in Alumbres’ claims that he was a laborer and that, at
the same time, he is a tanod. Petitioner
did not pursue the subject or offer any evidence that would show that Alumbres
was lying. As a tanod, it is not
incredible for Alumbres to be within an area adjacent to his jurisdiction;
(2) On the observation that Alumbres earlier claimed
that he saw petitioner shoot Godofredo, but later claimed that he heard a
gunshot that made him look to determine who fired the same, it is quite
possible that it was the first shot that made him look back at petitioner and
Godofredo just in time to see the rest of the first shots fired by petitioner
at Godofredo. Being merely three arms
away from the firing, it is not unlikely that, after his eyes wandered for a
brief moment, he does not even have to twist his head to another direction to
be able to look back at petitioner and Godofredo, thus seeing even the very
first shot fired;
(3) On the claim that Alumbres at first said that
he saw only the petitioner shooting at Godofredo, then changed his mind and
said that he also saw Jimeno and Madriago firing at Godofredo, Alumbres had
clarified that it was Godofredo who fired the first shot. This was what he was referring to the first
time it was asked;
(4) Alumbres’
asking around about petitioner’s work is not at all incompatible with
considering petitioner an acquaintance. It
is not unlikely for persons to have acquaintances whose work they do not know;
(5) On calling Jimeno
and Madriago as petitioner’s “alalay,”
Alumbres was merely describing how Jimeno and Mardriago appeared to be at that
time. Not knowing the names of Jimeno
and Madriago at the time of the incident is not inconsistent with any of
Alumbres’ statements.
(6) When Alumbres
said “malabo and mata ko,” Alumbres
was clearly referring to a problem concerning reading near objects, as shown in
the second day of cross-examinations when he failed to read small letters on
the map presented to him, saying it is blurred.[50] When Alumbres said “malabo ang mata ko” during the first day of cross-examination,[51]
Alumbres did not refrain from answering the question regarding the exhibit and
even helped mark certain places indicated in the sketch, probably after
adjusting his view. This shows that his
statement “
(7) The
differing accounts on how much Alumbres heard of the exchange between Godofredo
and petitioner before the shooting, as opposed to what he found out later; what
Pio Arce said when he arrived, and how many shots were fired, are trivial and
can easily be forgotten.
(8) When Pio
Arce said that he did not remember anything unusual on the night of
(9) The failure of Alumbres to notice when Arce
arrived at the scene of the crime is quite understandable, considering the
events that were already transpiring.
We have held that inconsistencies in
the testimonies of witnesses on minor details and collateral matters do not
affect either the substance of their declarations, their veracity, or the
weight of their testimonies; slight contradictions in fact serve to strengthen
the sincerity of a witness and prove that his testimony is not rehearsed.[52] It is settled that so long as the witnesses’
testimonies concur on substantial matters, the inconsistencies and
contradictions do not affect the witnesses’ credibility or the verity of their
testimonies.[53]
All
things considered, there is nothing to indicate that both Alumbres and Arce
deviated from the gist of their testimonies, i.e., that both of them saw petitioner gun down Godofredo Ariate. The aforesaid alleged contradictory statements
are but minor inconsistencies when a witness is testifying in court, which only
shows that both men witnessed the unfolding of the shooting incident from
different vantage points. The slight
divergence in their testimonies also goes to show that both men were not
rehearsed before they testified at the trial, but testified based on their own
perceptions.
Damages
The trial
court ordered petitioner to pay actual damages of P21,800.00 and
indemnity for death in the amount of P50,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed these awards
and ordered petitioner to pay an additional amount of P50,000.00 as
moral damages. We sustain these awards
of damages to the heirs of Godofredo Ariate.
The amount of actual damages had been duly proven by receipts.[54] No proof is necessary for the award of civil
indemnity for death other than the fact of death of the victim and the
culpability of the assailant.[55]
The award of moral damages in cases of
violent death is indeed fixed at P50,000.00 under current case law.[56]
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 26162 dated
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
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.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third
Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
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’s Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
* Justices Antonio T. Carpio and
Renato C. Corona were designated to sit as additional members replacing
Justices Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura and Ruben T. Reyes per Raffle dated
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Aurora
Santiago-Lagman with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes (now a member of this
Court) and Rebecca de Guia-Salvador, concurring. Rollo, pp. 76-85.
[2]
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4] Also spelled Gimeno, Gemeno and Jimeno in various parts of the records and rollo.
[5] Records, p. 181.
[6]
[7] CA rollo, pp. 102-103.
[8] Rollo, pp. 84-85.
[9]
[10] People v. Roche, 386 Phil. 287, 304 (2000).
[11] Exhibit “A”, Folder of Exhibits, p. 1.
[12] Exhibit “B”, id. at 2.
[13] TSN,
[14] Exhibits “C” to “C-2”, Folder of
Exhibits, pp. 2-A to 2-C; TSN,
[15] Rules of Court, Rule 131, Section 3(m); National Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112287, 13 December 1997, 283 SCRA 45, 76.
[16] Exhibit “B”, Folder of Exhibits, p. 2.
[17] Exhibit “E” (autopsy Report No.
N-99-832), Folder of Exhibits, p. 4; TSN,
[18] Rollo, pp. 34.
[19]
[20] Exhibit “W,” Folder of Exhibits (FID Report No. 181-12-799, N-99-832, 6 August 1999), p. 33.
[21] TSN,
[22] TSN,
[23] TSN,
[24] Exhibit “E”, Folder of Exhibits, p. 4.
[25] TSN,
[26] Underscored portion.
[27] Herrera, Remedial Law, Vol. V, 1999 Ed., p. 14.
[28] TSN,
[29] TSN,
[30]
[31] Exhibit “T,” Folder of Exhibits, pp. 28-29.
[32] TSN,
[33] TSN,
[34] TSN,
[35]
[36]
[37] TSN,
[38] TSN,
[39] Exhibit “X,” Folder of Exhibits.
[40] Exhibit “Y,” Folder of Exhibits, p. 34.
[41] TSN,
[42] Rollo,
pp. 73-75.
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47] People v. Listerio, 390 Phil. 337, 348 (2000).
[48] Ditche v. Court of Appeals, 384 Phil. 35, 46 (2000).
[49] Exhibit “O,” Folder of Exhibits, p. 19.
[50] TSN,
[51] TSN,
[52] People
v. Sanchez, G.R. Nos. 121039-45,
[53] People v. Paneza, 389 Phil. 617, 639 (2000).
[54] Exhibits “H,” “I” and “J”, Folder of Exhibits, pp. 7-9.
[56] People
v. Buban, G.R. No. 170471,