|
PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee, |
G.R. No. 175829
|
|
- versus - DOLORICO GUILLERA y ALGORDO and GARY GUILLERA y ALGORDO, Appellants. |
Present: Quisumbing,
J., Chairperson, Carpio
Morales, Tinga, VELASCO, JR., and PERALTA,* JJ.
Promulgated: March 20, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
QUISUMBING,
J.:
On appeal is the Decision[1] of the Court of
Appeals dated P60,000
as civil liability, P50,000 as moral damages and P70,000 as
actual damages.
In an Information[3] dated
x x x x
That on or about the 29th
day of March, 2002, in the municipality of Doña Remedios Trinidad, province of
Bulacan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, armed with a jungle bolo and with intent to kill Enrique
Hernandez y Sta. Ana, with evident premeditation and treachery, conspiring,
confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack and stab the said Enrique
Hernandez y Sta. Ana, hitting him on the different parts of his body thereby
inflicting upon him serious physical injuries which directly caused the death
of the said Enrique Hernandez y Sta. Ana.
Contrary to
law.[4]
During their arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial ensued.
Geraldine A. Hernandez, widow of the victim Enrique S.
Hernandez, was presented as the lone witness by the prosecution.
Geraldine testified that she and her husband, Enrique, owned a
farm in Sitio Pacot, Brgy. Kalawakan, Doña Remedios
Geraldine added that she hid amid the trees and tall
grasses. After assaulting her husband,
the three men looked for her. Unable to
find her, they fled. She then hurriedly
went home and called her brother and son who accompanied her back to the crime scene. Thereafter, they returned home while her
father reported the incident to the police authorities. The police authorities put up a checkpoint,
leading to Dolorico’s arrest that night.
They recovered Enrique’s body only at around
For the defense, appellants themselves testified.
Dolorico testified that on
Dolorico claimed that the crime scene was far and required a
four-hour walk from his house. He added
that although they were adjacent lot owners, he had no boundary dispute with
Enrique.[8]
Gary added that it would take one and a half days to reach
Sibul Spring, San Miguel, Bulacan from Mugo, Cagayan by means of public
transportation and vice versa.[11]
In support of his defense,
On
The trial court ruled that Geraldine’s relationship to
Enrique did not automatically impair her credibility nor did it render her testimony
less worthy of credence. On the
contrary, her credibility was further enhanced by the apparent lack of improper
motive on her part to testify falsely against appellants. Moreover, her categorical declarations and
positive identification of appellants prevail over their defense of alibi.
The trial court noted that treachery was present since
Enrique was attacked from behind leaving him in no position to defend
himself. There was also conspiracy as
evidenced by appellants’ concerted attack on Enrique one after the other, which
indicated a joint purpose and concurrence of intent to kill him.
The decision disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE,
this Court finds the herein accused, Dolorico Guillera and Gary Guillera,
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the
Revised [P]enal Code as amended and hereby sentences both accused to a prison
term of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay jointly and severally the heirs of the
late Enrique Hernandez the following sums of money, to wit:
1.
P60,000.00 as civil liability;
2.
P50,000.00 as moral damages; and
3.
P70,000.00 as actual damages.
The case against Francisco Guillera is hereby
ARCHIVED.
SO ORDERED.[14]
On
The appellate court also ruled that relationship strengthens
the witnesses’ credibility since it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to
falsely accuse someone other than the actual culprit. Where there is no evidence and nothing to
indicate that the principal witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by
improper motive, the presumption is that they were not so actuated and their
testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.
The dispositive portion reads as follows:
WHEREFORE,
the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION as to the
award of civil liability which is hereby reduced to Fifty Thousand
(Php50,000.00) Pesos.
SO ORDERED.[15]
Aggrieved, appellants elevated their case to this Court. Both appellants and the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) dispensed with the filing of supplemental briefs. Thus, we shall review the instant case based
on the following errors raised before the appellate court:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED
IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME
CHARGED.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED
IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI INTERPOSED BY THE DEFENSE.[16]
Simply put, the pivotal
issue is: Did the trial
court err in not giving credence to appellants’ defense of alibi?
Appellants fault the trial court for relying heavily on
Geraldine’s testimony. They allege that
nothing in Geraldine’s testimony would show that they had an argument with
Enrique. It was thus incredible for them
to attack and kill Enrique just because he inquired why they were removing the
wire fence. Moreover, Geraldine testified
that they were uphill while she stayed behind at a distance of about 10
meters. She was also amid the trees and
tall grasses in addition to the fact that it was then around
In addition, appellants contend that Dolorico clearly
established that he never left his house on
The OSG counters that the pivotal issue presented by
appellants revolved on the credibility of witnesses. It asserts that when it comes to the issue of
credibility, the trial court’s assessment is entitled to great weight, even
considered final, conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or
oversight of some facts or circumstances of weight and influence. In this case, the trial court gave full faith
and credence to Geraldine’s testimony that positively identified appellants as
the perpetrators of the crime. She
testified with spontaneity and consistency in a simple and straightforward
manner. Appellants have not shown any
circumstance to indicate that Geraldine was actuated by improper motive to
testify falsely against them.
The OSG adds that Geraldine’s positive assertions concerning
appellants’ participation in the crime far outweigh their protestations
claiming an alibi. For alibi to be
credible, the accused must not only prove his presence at another place at the
time of the commission of the crime, but he must also demonstrate that it was
physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of the
alleged offense.
Needless to stress, we have consistently adhered to the rule
that where the culpability or innocence of an accused hinges on the issue of
the credibility of witnesses, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals
affirming those of the trial court, when duly supported by sufficient and
convincing evidence, must be accorded the highest respect, even finality, by
this Court and are not to be disturbed on appeal.[17] Appellants have not shown any cogent reason
why we should reverse the findings of both courts below. Their petition must, therefore, fail.
This Court has no reason to doubt Geraldine’s testimony. She recounted the details of the killing in a
manner reflective of honest and unrehearsed testimony. Her candid, straightforward, firm and
unwavering account was free of significant inconsistencies, unshaken despite a
grueling cross-examination. That she
witnessed the killing, although she was amid the trees and tall grasses 10
meters downhill from Enrique and the three men and it was then around 6:00 p.m.,
is undisputed. Her account of how and
where Enrique was attacked was corroborated by the medico-legal report[18] showing the
injuries sustained by Enrique at his nape and other parts of his body.
Neither did Geraldine’s relationship with Enrique impair her
credibility since it is a basic precept that relationship per se of a witness with
the victim does not necessarily mean that the witness is biased. Close or blood relationship alone does not,
by itself, impair a witness’ credibility.[19] On the contrary, it could even strengthen the
witness’ credibility, for it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely
accuse someone other than the actual culprit. Their natural interest in securing the
conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating a person other than
the true offender.[20]
Moreover, appellants failed to show that Geraldine was
actuated by ill motive to testify falsely against them. When there is no showing of any improper
motive on the part of the 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.[21]
Juxtaposed against the prosecution’s positive identification
of the malefactors, appellants’ defense of alibi crumbles. As we consistently held, alibi is the weakest
of all defenses because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.[22] For alibi to prevail, clear and satisfactory proof
must be shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at
the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that he
was somewhere else.[23]
In this case, the element of physical impossibility is
absent.[24] Dolorico failed to present any witness who
could vouch that he never left his residence on
In sum, we are convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that
appellants are guilty for the murder of Enrique S. Hernandez. However, we note that the claim of P70,000
as actual damages is supported merely by a list of expenses instead of official
receipts.[25] A list of expenses
cannot replace receipts when the latter should have been issued as a matter of
course in business transactions.[26]
Neither can the mere testimony of
Geraldine on the amount she spent suffice. It is necessary for a party seeking an award
for actual damages to produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable
to justify such award.[27] Nonetheless, in the absence of substantiated
and proven expenses relative to the wake and burial of Enrique, temperate
damages in the amount of P25,000 shall be awarded to his heirs, since
they clearly incurred funeral expenses.[28]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision
dated September 27, 2006, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01522
which affirmed with modification the Decision dated June 24, 2005, of the
Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 11 in Criminal Case No.
1790-M-2002, is AFFIRMED with the
modification that appellants Dolorico A. Guillera and Gary A. Guillera are ordered
to pay jointly and severally P25,000 as temperate damages instead of P70,000
as actual damages.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
WE CONCUR:
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR. Associate Justice |
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
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 |
* Designated member of Second Division per Special Order No. 587 in place of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion who is on leave.
[1] Rollo,
pp. 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice
Magdangal M. De
[2] Records, pp. 151-153. Penned by Judge Basilio R. Gabo, Jr.
[3]
[4]
[5] TSN,
[6] TSN,
[7] TSN,
[8]
[9] TSN,
[10] Rollo, p. 5.
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] Records, p. 152.
[14]
[15] Rollo, p. 16.
[16] CA rollo, p. 36.
[17] Siccuan
v. People, G.R. No. 133709,
[18] Records, p. 23.
[19] Cf. Tadeja
v. People, G.R. No. 145336,
[20] Velasco v. People, G.R. No. 166479, February 28, 2006, 483 SCRA 649, 667-668; People v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 137782, April 1, 2003, 400 SCRA 217, 224.
[21] Tadeja
v. People, supra at 165-166; People
v. Celis, G.R. Nos. 125307-09,
[22] People
v. Borbon, G.R. No. 143085,
[23] People
v. Balleras, G.R. No. 134564,
[24] People
v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 139351,
[25] TSN,
[26] People v. Buenavidez, G.R. No. 141120, September 17, 2003, 411 SCRA 202, 209-210; People v. Hate, G.R. No. 145712, September 24, 2002, 389 SCRA 578, 586.
[27] People
v. Baño, G.R. No. 148710,
[28] People v. Baño, id.