Republic of the
Supreme Court
ARTURO C. CABARON and
BRIGIDA CABARON,
Petitioners, -
versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondents. |
G.R. No. 156981
Present: *corona, j., **CARPIO-MORALES, Acting Chairperson, BRION, DEL CASTILLO, and ABAD, JJ. Promulgated: October 5, 2009 |
|
|||
x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|||||
|
|
||||
|
R E S O L U T I O N
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
BRION, J.: |
|
|||
For our review is the petition[1]
filed by petitioners Arturo C. Cabaron
and Brigida Cabaron assailing the decision[2]
and resolution[3] of the Sandiganbayan dated
ANTECEDENT FACTS
The case traces its roots to the
complaint for grave threats, extortion, bribery, dereliction of duty, violation
of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and
violation of R.A. No. 6713 filed by
Richter G. Pacifico (Pacifico) before
the Deputy Ombudsman (Visayas) against the petitioners, docketed as
OMB-VIS-CRIM-96-1213.
The Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas,
in his resolution[4] dated
That on or about the 7th
day of October 1996, at about 2:30 o’clock in the afternoon, and for sometime
subsequent thereto, at Cebu City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, above- named accused ARTURO C. CABARON, a public officer,
being an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu in such capacity and
committing the offense in relation to office, taking advantage of his public
functions, conniving, confederating and mutually helping with accused BRIGIDA
Y. CABARON, his wife and a private individual, with deliberate intent, with
intent of gain and evident bad faith, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously solicit/demand from one Richter G. Pacifico, mother of Abraham
Pacifico, Jr., who have pending cases before the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor for preliminary investigation the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00)
PESOS, Philippine Currency in consideration for the consolidation and handling
by him of the case entitled “Ohyeen Alesna vs. Abraham Pacifico, Jr.,” for Rape
(IS No. 96-11651), which is assigned to Provincial Prosecutor Rodolfo Go, with
another criminal case entitled “Abraham Pacifico, Jr. vs. Alvin Alesna,” for
Frustrated Murder, which is handled by accused
Arturo C. Cabaron, and the giving of a lawyer to defend Abraham
Pacifico, Jr. who bears similar family name with the Provincial Prosecutor of
Cebu, in order that Abraham Pacifico,
Jr. can get a favorable Resolution in
the above-mentioned cases, thus, accused in the course of his official
functions solicited/demanded anything of monetary value from litigants, which
act is prohibited under Sec. 7(d) of R.A. 6713, “The Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees,” to the detriment of
public service and interest.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
The Sandiganbayan issued warrants of
arrest against the petitioners on
The petitioners were duly arraigned
and pleaded “not guilty” to the charge laid.[10]
Trial on the merits thereafter followed. Meanwhile, the prosecution filed on
The Sandiganbayan convicted the
petitioners of the crime charged in its decision of
WHEREFORE, this Court finds accused ARTURO C. CABARON and BRIGIDA CABARON GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of Violation of Sec. 7(d) R.A. 6713, hereby sentences both accused to each suffer an imprisonment for TWO (2) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, and to pay the costs. Likewise, both accused are solidarily liable to Richter Pacifico in the amount of P30,000 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.[13]
The petitioners moved to reconsider
this decision, but the Sandiganbayan denied their motion in its resolution
dated
WHEREFORE, this Court finds accused ARTURO C. CABARON and BRIGIDA
Y. CABARON GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Sec.
7(d), R.A. 6713, hereby sentences both accused to each suffer the indeterminate
penalty of ONE (1) YEAR AS MINIMUM to TWO (2) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY AS MAXIMUM,
and to pay the costs. Likewise, both accused are solidarily liable to Richter
Pacifico in the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.[14] [Emphasis and underscoring in the original]
Petitioners filed a petition for
review on certiorari before this
Court, alleging, among others, that the Sandiganbayan erred –
1.
in
overlooking the fact that the case was merely a harassment case instigated by
Atty.
2.
in
relying on the testimonies of Pacifico and Editha Baylon (Editha); and
3.
in
not giving weight to the testimonies of defense witnesses Russo and Zoe.
This Court’s Third Division, in a resolution[15] dated
The petitioners moved to reconsider
this resolution.[16] This Court reinstated the petition for review
on certiorari in its resolution[17]
dated
THE COURT’S RULING
We
deny the petition for raising pure
questions of fact.
Only
questions of law should be
raised in a
Rule 45 petition
It
is settled that the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over decisions
and final orders of the Sandiganbayan is limited only to questions of law; it
does not review the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan which, as a rule, are
conclusive upon the Court.[18]
A
question of law exists when there is doubt or controversy as
to what the law is on a certain state of facts. On the other hand, a question of fact exists when the doubt
or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.
The resolution of a question
of fact necessarily involves a calibration of the evidence, the credibility of
the witnesses, the existence and the relevance of surrounding circumstances,
and the probability of specific situations.[19]
Simple as it may seem, determining
the true nature and extent of the distinction is not always easy. In a case involving a question of law, the resolution
of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides for a given set of facts
drawn from the evidence presented. Once
it is clear that the issue invites a review of the probative value of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. If
the query requires a re-evaluation of
the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding
circumstances and their relation to each other, the issue in that query is
factual.[20]
In
the present case, the
petitioners seek a review by this Court of the factual findings of the
Sandiganbayan, which essentially involve the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies. The question regarding the
credibility of witnesses is obviously one of fact on which the Sandiganbayan
had already passed upon in its decision and resolution dated
The Sandiganbayan in
its October 15, 2002 Decision gave full probative value to the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses, Pacifico and Editha. It held that the testimony of Pacifico narrating how the petitioners
demanded money from him was corroborated on material points by Editha. It gave no credit to the attempt of the
defense to impugn the credibility of Pacifico and Editha, and ruled that the
inconsistencies in their testimonies refer to trivial and insignificant matters
that do not affect at all the conclusion reached.
The Sandiganbayan also held that the testimonies
of the defense witnesses were unreliable and not in accord with the natural
course of things. It likewise gave no credence to the defense’s theory that
Atty. Valencia instigated Pacifico’s complaint against the petitioners.
The
Sandiganbayan reiterated its conclusions regarding the credibility of witnesses
in its resolution dated
The defense tried to thrust
upon this court that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are
incredible as the same were tainted, impelled as they are and used by Atty.
This imputation of sinister
motive upon the prosecution witnesses is lame and apparently made to save
themselves from prosecution. It is worthy to note that although they alleged
improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses, accused-movants
failed to substantiate the same by clear and convincing evidence. In the
absence of substantial evidence showing the improper motive so attributed to
the prosecution witnesses, the logical conclusion is that no such improper
motive exists, and their testimony is therefore worthy of full faith and
credence.
Furthermore, in light of the
categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses showing the
accused-movants Cabarons’ accountability, their bare denial must fail. As
between a categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand and a bare
denial on the other, the former generally prevails. This is so because denial,
if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and self-serving
evidence which cannot be accorded greater weight than the testimony of credible
witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.
x x x x[21]
As
the tribunal with the full opportunity to observe firsthand the demeanor and deportment of the
witnesses, the Sandiganbayan’s findings that the witnesses for the prosecution
are to be believed as against those of the defense are entitled to great
weight. It may not
be amiss to reiterate that on the issue of credibility of witnesses, appellate
courts will not disturb the findings arrived at by the trial courts – the
tribunals in a better position to rate the credibility of witnesses after hearing them and observing their deportment and manner of
testifying during the trial; it is not for this Court to review again the evidence
already considered in the proceedings below. This rule
stands absent any showing that facts and circumstances of weight and value have
been overlooked, misinterpreted or misapplied by the lower court that, if
considered, would affect the result or outcome of the case.[22] The Sandiganbayan rulings The Sandiganbayan
rulings in this case suffer no such infirmities, notwithstanding the efforts of
the petitioners to create a contrary impression.
As we explained in Tayaban
v. People:[23]
[T]he assessment of the
credibility of a witness is primarily the function of a trial
court, which had the benefit of observing firsthand the demeanor or deportment
of the witness. It is well-settled that this Court will not reverse the trial
court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses in the
absence of arbitrariness, abuse of discretion or palpable error. It is within
the discretion of the Sandiganbayan to weigh the evidence
presented by the parties, as well as to accord full faith to those it regards
as credible and reject those it considers perjurious or fabricated. Moreover,
the settled rule is that absent any evidence showing a reason or motive for
prosecution witnesses to perjure their testimonies, the
logical conclusion is that no improper motive exists, and that their
testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, we hereby DENY
the petition.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Acting Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate
Justice |
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONCHITA
CARPIO-MORALES
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
*
Designated additional Member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 718
dated
** Per Special Order
No. 690 dated
[1] Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta (now a member of this Court); rollo, pp. 85-107.
[3]
[4] Records, pp. 4-11.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Decision, rollo, p. 116.
[14] Resolution, id., pp. 71-72.
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] See Rodriguez
v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 63118,
[19] See Republic
v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 135789,
[20] See
[21] Rollo, pp. 68-69.
[22] See Arceño
v. People, G.R. No. 116098,
[23] G.R. No. 150194,