Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee,
- versus -
NESTOR BAJADA y BAUTISTA, VICTOR CALISAY y LOYAGA, and JOHN DOE,
Accused-Appellants.
G.R. No. 180507
Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA,
VELASCO,
JR., and
BRION, JJ.
Promulgated:
November
20, 2008
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO,
JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the February 7, 2006 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01043 which affirmed the
conviction of and death penalty for accused-appellants for the crime of robbery
with homicide. Said judgment was
originally handed down on
The Facts
An information dated
That on or about
Cash Money -PhP 20,000.00;
Assorted jewelry - 80,000.00;
$500.00 (current rate $1.00=40.00)- 20,000.00; and
some pertinent documents
with the total amount of HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND (PhP 120,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, for their own personal use and benefit, owned and belonging to said Antonio C. Villamayor, and in the course of the said occasion, above-named accused while conveniently armed with a handgun and bladed weapon, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, kick, attack, assault and stab ANTONIO C. VILLAMAYOR, resulting [in] his instantaneous death, and also inflicted upon ANABELLE ASAYTONO, stab wound on her left chest, thus, accused had commenced all the acts of execution which could have produced the crime of Homicide, as a consequence, but nevertheless, did not produce it by reason/cause independent of the will of the accused, which prevented her death, to the damage and prejudice of the herein surviving heirs of Antonio Villamayor and offended party, Anabelle Asaytono.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Bajada and Calisay pleaded not guilty to the charge.
During trial, the prosecution sought to establish the following
facts: Bajada and Calisay were overseers
at Antonio C. Villamayor’s farm in Bayate, Laguna. As overseers, they visited Villamayor’s house
in Liliw, Laguna at least four times a week to deliver vegetables from the
farm.[4]
On
Upon entering the house, John Doe said, “There are many people in
Calumpang who are angry at you because you are a usurer engaged in 5-6, so give
me PhP 100,000 right now.” John Doe made
Villamayor sit down but when the latter refused, John Doe made him lie face
down on the floor and kicked his back several times. Meanwhile, Bajada pointed his gun at Asaytono
and demanded for money. Asaytono denied
having any money. She was then made to
lie face down on the ground and was kicked.
John Doe asked from Villamayor the key to the cabinet which was a meter
away from the latter. Villamayor brought
out a key from his pocket and handed it to Bajada. Asaytono, who was able to stand up, saw the
three accused unlock Villamayor’s cabinet and took out its contents which
consisted of documents and clothes. Accused-appellants
also opened the drawer and took jewelry valued at PhP 80,000 and the PhP 20,000
and USD 500 cash.[6]
Thereafter, Bajada pushed Asaytono towards Villamayor, laying her head
sideways on Villamayor’s head. In this
position, Asaytono was able to see Calisay repeatedly stab Villamayor on the
back. Calisay then stabbed Asaytono on
her left breast. Asaytono pretended to
be dead as she lied on Villamayor who was still moving. The three men then hurriedly left the
house. Asaytono stood up and saw through
the three men move towards the rice field.
She noticed that Villamayor’s dog wagged its tail as it followed the three
men, the way it did when accused-appellants would visit Villamayor.[7]
Assured that the men had left the area, Asaytono ran to the house of her neighbor,
Cristy Samparada, for help. After
telling about incident to her neighbor, Asaytono lost consciousness and
regained the same after two days at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) in
The incident was reported to the police of Liliw, Laguna on
The defense presented Bajada, Calisay, and Editha Loyaga Calisay as
witnesses. Bajada is Calisay’s
stepfather, while Editha is Bajada’s live-in partner and Calisay’s mother. Bajada
and Calisay denied committing the crime and offered an alibi. They said they were husking coconuts until
around
Bajada testified that he had known Villamayor for two years and had a
good relationship with the latter and Asaytono.
He believed that Asaytono accused him as the perpetrator because he
dissuaded Villamayor from visiting Asaytono’s relatives in Bicol since
Villamayor was too old and frail to travel.
This was allegedly overheard by Asaytono. Bajada added that Villamayor fully trusted
him with the secret that Asaytono will not inherit any land from Villamayor. Bajada also alleged that Asaytono accused him
of the crime because he warned Villamayor not to leave money in the house
because Bajada suspected Asaytono’s motives.
Calisay added that Asaytono used to get angry whenever Bajada would get
money from Villamayor. Calisay, however,
testified that he did not see any ill motive on the part of Asaytono when she testified
against accused-appellants.
On
WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS,
the Court finds both the accused NESTOR BAJADA and VICTOR CALISAY as GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT as
co-principals of the offense of ROBBERY
WITH HOMICIDE as defined and punished under paragraph No. (1) of Article
294 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by the Death Penalty Law (RA 7659) and
as charged in the Information and taking into consideration the two (2)
aggravating circumstances enumerated hereinbefore without any mitigating circumstance
that would offset the same, hereby sentences both the said accused to suffer
the SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH and to pay the heirs of the deceased Antonio
Villamayor the sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity and the sum of P78,620.00
as reasonable expenses incurred by reasons of said death and to pay the cost of
the instant suit.[10]
Accused-appellants filed their brief before this Court on
The Ruling of the CA
In their appeal before the CA, accused-appellants reiterated their
defenses of denial and alibi. They
claimed that Asaytono’s testimonies in court on
The CA held that Asaytono’s testimony was categorical and straightforward,
and her identification of accused-appellants was consistent. Having worked with accused-appellants in the
farm for a year, she can readily identify their facial features, voices,
physique, and smell. According to the
CA, the details which were lacking in her sworn statement but which she
supplied in open court only served to strengthen her testimony. The CA did not lend credence to accused-appellants’
defense of alibi since it was possible for them to be at the crime scene––they
claimed that they slept at 11:00 p.m. while the incident happened at 11:30 p.m.;
and the victims’ house was only 15 minutes away by jeep from the farm.
The CA, however, disagreed with the trial court’s finding of the
aggravating circumstances of dwelling and additional serious physical injury.
It said that the information failed to specifically allege the aggravating circumstance
of dwelling; hence, it cannot be appreciated even if proved during trial. Also, applying People v. Abdul, the
appellate court held that the homicides or murders and physical injuries
committed on occasion or by reason of the robbery are merged in the composite
crime of “robbery with homicide.”[12] It concluded that absent any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances, the penalty should be reduced to reclusion
perpetua. The dispositive portion of
the CA’s judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, the
instant appeal is DISMISSED. The
Decision, dated
Bajada’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated
Assignment of Error
In the instant appeal, accused-appellant Bajada reiterates his defenses
and assigns the following error:
THE
Bajada asserts that the lower court erred in convicting him and his
co-accused based on the testimony in open court of the prosecution witness,
Asaytono. Such testimony is allegedly
inconsistent with the
The Court’s Ruling
The appeal has no merit.
The inconsistencies in the sworn statements and testimony of the
prosecution witness, Asaytono, referred to by accused-appellant Bajada do not affect
her credibility. The details which she supplied
to the police and to the investigating judge are trivial compared to the
testimony she gave in open court. What
is important is that in all three statements, i.e., sworn statement before the police, sworn statement before
Judge Bercales, and testimony in open court, Asaytono consistently and clearly
identified accused-appellants as the perpetrators. The essential facts do not differ: three men
entered and robbed the house of Villamayor and stabbed him and Asaytono, and
Asaytono witnessed the stabbing and recognized two of the accused because she
was familiar with the latter’s physical attributes.
Also, the Solicitor General correctly pointed out that the defense
counsel did not confront Asaytono with these alleged inconsistencies. In People v. Castillano, Sr., we held
that:
Before the credibility of a witness and the truthfulness of his testimony can be impeached by evidence consisting of his prior statements which are inconsistent with his present testimony, the cross-examiner must lay the predicate or the foundation for impeachment and thereby prevent an injustice to the witness being cross-examined. The witness must be given a chance to recollect and to explain the apparent inconsistency between his two statements and state the circumstances under which they were made. This Court held in People v. Escosura that the statements of a witness prior to her present testimony cannot serve as basis for impeaching her credibility unless her attention was directed to the inconsistencies or discrepancies and she was given an opportunity to explain said inconsistencies.[17]
This is in line with Section 13, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court
which states:
Section 13. How
witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements.—Before a witness can
be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements
inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements must be related to him,
with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he
must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain
them. If the statements be in writing,
they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning
them.
More controlling is our ruling in People
v. Alegado where we held that inconsistencies between the sworn statement
and the testimony in court do not militate against the witness’ credibility
since sworn statements are generally considered inferior to the testimony in
open court.[18]
In any case, Asaytono was able to sufficiently identify Bajada as one of
the perpetrators to the satisfaction of the trial court. Asaytono’s familiarity with Bajada cannot be
denied; she has known Bajada and Calisay for more than a year prior to the
incident. The two accused were also frequent
visitors at the victim’s house. Hence,
Asaytono was acquainted with Bajada’s physical features. The trial court found her testimony to be
credible, frank, straightforward, and consistent throughout the trial. We see no reason to disturb this finding
since trial courts are in a unique position to observe the demeanor of
witnesses.[19] The trial court’s findings regarding the
witness’ credibility are accorded the highest degree of respect.
Furthermore, Bajada could not ascribe any plausible ill motive against
the witness. His accusation against
Asaytono that the latter was interested in inheriting from Villamayor is
self-serving and uncorroborated. Even
Bajada’s own stepson, Calisay, stated that there was no prior misunderstanding
between him and Asaytono and that he did not know any reason why Asaytono would
accuse them of a crime. The letters
allegedly written by an eyewitness who was afraid to testify in trial cannot be
given probative value. The letters
accused Asaytono as one of the culprits—a defense which was already dismissed
by the courts a quo. There was no evidence to support such allegation. The said letters were belatedly submitted,
uncorroborated, and cannot be admitted in evidence.
Bajada’s alibi likewise deserves no merit. For alibi to prosper, it must be shown that
the accused was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the offense and
that it was physically impossible for the accused to be present at the scene of
the crime at the time of its commission.[20] Bajada himself admitted, however, that the
travel time from Bayate, Liliw, Laguna to the crime scene is only 15 minutes by
jeep. Hence, it was possible for him to
be at the crime scene at or around the time the offense was committed.
The appellate court correctly reduced the penalty to reclusion
perpetua. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling was
not specifically alleged in the information.
As regards the additional charge of “serious physical injuries,” we held
in Abdul[21] that this
is merged in the crime of robbery with homicide.
WHEREFORE, the
February 7, 2006 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01043 is AFFIRMED
IN TOTO. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D.
BRION
Associate Justice
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.
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I
certify 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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-20. Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam and
concurred in by Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Mariflor P.
Punzalan Castillo.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 25-38. Penned by Judge Fernando M. Paclibon, Jr.
[3]
[4] Rollo, p. 5.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] CA rollo,
pp. 31-32.
[10] Supra note 2, at 37-38.
[11]
G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[12]
G.R. No. 128074,
[13] Supra note 1, at 19-20.
[14] Rollo, pp. 21-22.
[15] CA rollo, pp. 48-67.
[16]
[17]
G.R. No. 139412,
[18]
G.R. No. 80532,
[19] People
v. Cabareño, G.R. No. 138645,
[20] People
v. Torrefiel, G.R. No. 115431,
[21] Supra note 12.