|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, - versus - ARISTO VILLANUEVA, Appellant. |
G.R. No. 178543
Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES,
BRION, DEL CASTILLO, and ABAD, JJ. Promulgated: September
4, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
From the March 30, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the February 4,
2004 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City (Branch 46) finding
him guilty of murder, Aristo Villanueva (appellant) lodged the present appeal.
Via Information of March
20, 2002, appellant, together with one Rodrigo Malong (Malong) who is still at
large, was charged as follows:
That on or about
7:00 o’ clock [sic] in the morning of
October 17, 2001 at Brgy. San Juan, San Manuel, Pangasinan and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring
together, armed and with the use of unlicensed firearms, with intent to kill,
treachery and abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously shoot JANAIRO MAGCALAS inflicting upon him multiple
gunshot wounds which caused his death, to the damage and prejudice of his
heirs.
CONTRARY to Art.
248, Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659 in relation to R.A. [No.]
8294.[1]
From the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses Marina Magcalas (Marina), Mercedita Capua (Mercedita),
Dr. Asuncion Tuvera, SPO3 Danilo Pascua (SPO3 Pascua) of the San Manuel,
Pangasinan Police Station and PO3 Julius Ceasar Manocdoc, the following version
is gathered:
At 7:00 a.m. of October 17, 2001, while Janairo
Magcalas (the victim) and his wife Marina were in front of their house in Barangay
San Juan, San Manuel waiting for a tricycle that would bring them to Urdaneta
City,[2] and
the victim’s mother Mercedita was sweeping in the vicinity about three (3)
meters away from the couple,[3] appellant,
who was on board a motorcycle in tandem with Malong, arrived and at once drew
his caliber .45 gun and shot the victim.
Malong, who was also armed with a gun, also shot the victim. The assailants then pointed their guns at Marina
and again fired at the already sprawled victim.[4]
The autopsy of the victim
who was pronounced dead on arrival[5] at the
hospital showed that he sustained five gunshot wounds, three of which were located
at entry points at his back and two at exit points at the abdomen area.[6]
On arrival at the crime
scene, when SPO3 Pascua asked Mercedita if she recognized the assailant, she
replied “no, sir . . . [he] had [a] companion [on board] a Honda TMX.” When he propounded the same question to Marina,
she too said she did not.[7]
More than
three months after the shooting or on
January 31, 2002, Marina and Mercedita
executed their respective sworn statements before the
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group’s Urdaneta City Sub-Office[8] naming
appellant and Malong as the malefactors.
To Marina, appellant and Malong
were regular patrons at her balut
stand.[9] To Mercedes, appellant was the one who
usually fetched the victim from their house whenever the latter would go somewhere.[10]
Upon the other hand, appellant,
who denied being acquainted with Marina and Mercedita as well as with the
victim, invoked alibi, claiming that he was on the day of the incident, October
17, 2001, in Cahil, Diffun, Quirino helping his uncle at the farm; that he left Quirino for San Manuel on
December 18, 2001 and was arrested and detained by the San Manuel police the
next day[11]
in connection with the killing of a certain Saribay; that while on detention or in the second
week of January 2002 Marina visited him;[12] and that he was released from detention in April 2002 following the dismissal of
the case against him in connection with the killing of Saribay.
Brushing aside appellant’s alibi, the trial court, by Decision[13] of
February 4, 2004, convicted him, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused ARISTO “ARIS” VILLANUEVA is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder of JANARIO MAGCALAS. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and ordered to pay the heirs of Janario Magcalas (a)P12,990.00 in actual damages; (b) P50,000.00 death indemnity; and (c) P50,000.00 in moral damages.
x x x x
SO ORDERED.
In convicting appellant, the trial court noted that
[t]he prosecution witnesses were consistent in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the victim’s assailants. The alleged inconsistencies, notwithstanding, the fact remains that they both categorically identified Villanueva as Janario’s assailant. In view of their presence at the time of the incident and their unobstructed view of what transpired, undoubtedly, their eyewitness account must be given credit. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The trial court ruled out the presence
of the aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm, however, the same
not having been established by the prosecution.
On appellant’s appeal before this
Court, the case was, pursuant to People
v. Mateo,[14] referred
to the Court of Appeals for disposition.[15]
The Court of Appeals, by Decision[16] of
March 30, 2007, affirmed with modification appellant’s conviction by awarding exemplary
damages in the amount of P25,000 due to the presence of the aggravating
circumstance of treachery.
In the present appeal, appellant maintains that the prosecution failed to
discharge its primary burden by overwhelming evidence. Citing People
v. Contega,[17]
he contends that “the rule that alibi
must be satisfactorily proved was never intended to change the burden of proof
in criminal cases; otherwise, we w[ould] see the absurdity of an accused being
out in a more difficult position where the prosecution’s evidence is vague and
weak than where it is strong.”
For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General maintains that the
testimonies of the relatives of the victim bear the badges of truth as they
“have [the] natural knack for remembering the faces of the attackers and they,
more than anybody else, would be concerned with vindicating the crime by having
the felons brought before the bar of justice.”
Furthermore, the Solicitor General posits, there is nothing in the
record to indicate that Marina and Mercedita were impelled by improper motive
to testify against appellant.[18]
The appeal is impressed with merit.
Delay in reporting a crime or identifying the malefactor does not affect the credibility of the witnesses for as long as the same is sufficiently explained.[19]
In the present case, the Court entertains doubts on the identification,
more than three (3) months after the incident, by prosecution witnesses Marina
and Mercedita, of appellant as one of two men who fatally shot the victim. Nothing on record sufficiently explains why
Marina and Mercedita, who claimed to be familiar with appellant, failed to
immediately name him as one of the assailants when SPO3 Pascua inquired from
them if they recognized the “assailant.”
Marina, in fact even went to the Balungao District Jail, in the company of a certain Nel Ramos, a week after her husband’s
death in October 2001 purportedly to identify
appellant, then on detention there, as one of the assailants. But despite that, she did not inform the
police of appellant’s involvement in her husband’s killing, until after more
than three months.
Consider Marina’s following account, quoted verbatim, surrounding the delay.
Q After you claimed that you have seen Aris Villanueva shot your husband three (3) times. Where is the next time you have seen him?
A I did not see him sir.
Q In other words the next time you saw Aris Villanueva when he was already in Court, right?
A Yes sir.
Q Is it not true that you went to the District Jail of Balungao to see Aris Villanueva?
A No
sir.
Q And in fact you are even in the company of Ombudsman Narciso Ramos?
ATTY. IGNACIO:
We would like to put on the record that she (witness) hardly answer the question for a yes or no. She hard times to answer the question, your Honor.
WITNESS:
A Yes
sir.
Q And
you have seen Aris Villanueva the jail in Balungao?
A Yes
sir.
Q And
somebody pointed to you, right?
A Yes
sir.
Q If you love your husband why did it take you four (4) months from October 17 to report/identify the assailant. Why did it take you for some time?
A Because I newly gave birth that time and we are poor, sir.
Q When did you give birth?
A December sir.
Q You mean to say from October to December, two (2) months, and yet you did not tell to the Police that you recognized Aris Villanueva, right?
A Somebody
helped us which is why I was given the nerve to report the matter, sir.
Q Why you have no nerve?
A Because we are threatened sir.
Q Who threatened you?
A There were times gunshot and motorcycle used to stop in front of our house, sir.
x x x x
Q Even
after you gave birth to your child on December, it still take you for two (2)
months to report to the CIDG, San Fernando, La Union?
A Yes sir.
Q Why
San Fernando, La Union and not San Manuel Police?
A Because
we reported to the San Manuel Police and nothing happened, sir.
Q When was that when you reported in San Manuel Police?
A At the time when my husband died, sir.
Q Did you tell the Police of San Manuel that Aris Villanueva and Rodrigo Malong who shot your husband?
A Yes sir.
Q Who was that policeman whom you
reported?
A Policeman Pascua sir.
Q Was it the other way Pascua whom you reported?
A I don’t want to talk this time because I’m afraid, sir.
Q In other words it was not Aris Villanueva and Rodrigo Malong?
A Yes sir.
Q And
you did not tell the Police that it was Aris Villanueva and Rodrigo
Malong who shot your husband?
A Yes sir.
Q In fact you are present when Pascua testified in Court?
A Yes sir.
Q And
it was very emphatic that you did not recognize who shot your husband?
A Yes sir.[20] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
It bears stress that the foregoing testimony of Marina is noticeably discordant
on whether she immediately reported to the police the identity of appellant as
one of the malefactors. At one point, she
volunteered that she gave the name of appellant to SPO3 Pascua only to contradict
the same later. Again, consider her testimony
as follows, quoted verbatim:
Q When you saw Aris Villanueva inside the district jail of Balungao, what did you do?
A None sir, but I just pointed to him.
Q You
did not go and accused him for killing your husband?
A No
sir.
x x x x
Q You said that your husband was shot on October 17, 2001 in the morning. From that time your husband was shot, how many days when you and Ombudsman Ramos went to the District Jail of Balungao?
A More than a week, sir.
Q Why,
do you know the reason why you and Ombudsman Ramos went to the Balungao
District Jail?
A To identify whether he was really the
one who shot my husband, sir.
Q Who told you to identify?
A Pareng Nel sir.[21] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Why Marina had to visit appellant, to whom she claimed to be familiar, in
jail, in order to be able to point to him as one of the culprits underscores
the fact that either she was not at all familiar with appellant or she did not really
see who shot her husband. For, if she really saw and recognized or was familiar
with appellant, there would have been no need for her to see him while in
detention in order to identify him. In
fact, that even after seeing appellant at the jail a week or more after the
shooting she still failed to complain against him but waited for about three
(3) months reinforces the doubt on her claim that it was he who was one of two
who shot her husband.
Mercedita’s attempt to explain the delay in identifying appellant as one
of the malefactors does not impress either.
Consider further her testimony as follows, quoted verbatim:
Q Why did you not go straight to San Manuel?
A Because if we go to the police of San Manuel they do not mind us there, sir.
Q How many times did you go there?
A Two (2) times, sir.
x x x x
Q Did Pascua [of the San Manuel police force] ever see you and interview you?
A He did not investigate me.
Q But he saw you at the place in San
Juan?
A Yes, sir.
Q You
did not volunteer to tell Pascua what you saw at that time?
A Pascua just said, “Who is that who really
did that?”
Q What was your answer to that question
of Pascua?
A “This is what happened,” I said.
Q What
is that that happened that you told Pascua?
A When
the cadaver arrived coming from the hospital, I told Pascua, “This is what
happened,” and Pascua did not say
anything.
Q Did you tell Pascua that it was Aris
Villanueva and Rodrigo Malong that shot your son?
A Not
yet, sir.
Q What did you mean by not yet, did you
finally tell him?
A No, sir, because our minds were not
still in order.
Q After recovering from that state of
mind of yours, did you go back to Pascua and tell him what happened?
A No,
sir.
Q Why, when you claim that you saw and recognized the assailant of your son?
A No, sir, when they examined the cadaver of Janario, Pascua did not get near.
Q According to you, you talked with him two times, did you not tell him what you saw, this Investigator Pascua, you did not tell, him?
A Yes, sir, first was when Janario died and second was when I went there and they did not mind us.
Q Because he asked you who did that to your son
and you did not tell him that is why he did not mind you anymore, right?
A Yes, sir.[22] (Emphasis, capitalization, and underscoring supplied)
The foregoing testimony shows Mercedita’s evasiveness on her answers on whether
she told SPO3 Pascua the identity of appellant as one of her son’s assailants,
proffering vague retorts to an otherwise plain and simple query. At any
rate, it is clear that she did not tell SPO3 Pascua who shot her son, as indeed
SPO3 Pascua had claimed at the witness stand that both Marina and Mercedita had
told him during the investigation that they did not recognize who shot the
victim. Thus SPO3 Pascua testified:
Q What did you do when you found out that he died?
A I also interviewed Marina Magcalas if she knows the identity of the gunman. She was crying and crying and told me she does not know the two (2) who gunned h[er] husband.[23]
x x x x
ATTY. IGNACIO: (Cross-examination)
Q You claim that when you arrived at the crime scene the mother of the victim, Mercedita Magcalas was around and you claim that you investigated her together with Tanod Manuel, how did you investigate them?
A In Ilocano, sir.
Q We expect that you asked them if they recognized the assailant in Ilocano, “AMAMMO YO KADI DAYDIAY PIMMALTOG? (Do you know the gunman?), what was their answer in Ilocano?
A “HAAN, SIR, ADDA CADUA NA, NAKAMOTOR TI HONDA TMX AGPABAGATAN DA” (No, sir, . . . he has companion [on board] a Honda TMX proceeding southward).[24] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
As indicated in the earlier-quoted testimony of Marina, she claimed that
she did not have the “nerve” to tell the police that she recognized appellant
as one of her husband’s killer as “we [were] threatened,” explaining that “[t]here were times gunshot
and motorcycle used to stop infront of our house.” While threats have been held to be valid
grounds to explain the delay in identifying the assailants, there is no showing
in the present case if those claimed bases of the threats were real, and if
they were, who lodged them and for what.
At all events, Marina and Mercedita gave differing explanations why it
took some time for them to name appellant.
Thus, Marina banked on her having just given birth. But she was two months shy of delivery at the
time of the incident. Whereas Mercedita blamed the ensuing
confusion (their “minds were still not in order”).
The indifference attributed by Marina to the San Manuel Police in solving
the crime thus appears to be a mere subterfuge, given that the records reflect the
assiduous investigation of the police in tracking the killers with the search
reaching a dead-end due to lack of leads.
While alibi is considered weak and unavailing, it acquires significance
where no proper identification of the assailant has been made.[25]
In fine, the prosecution failed to discharge
its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellant. The burden of evidence did not thus shift to
appellant, rendering it unnecessary to pass on his alibi.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of
Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For failure of the prosecution to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, appellant, Aristo Villanueva, is ACQUITTED of murder.
Let a copy of this Decision be
furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City who is directed
to forthwith cause the immediate release of appellant, unless he is being
lawfully held for another cause, and to inform the Court of action taken within
10 days.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A.
ABAD
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
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
CERTIFICATION
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] Records, p. 1.
[2] Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), April 21, 2003, pp. 3-4.
[3] TSN, April 23, 2003, p.4-5.
[4] TSN, April 21, 2003. pp. 4-7.
[5] Id. at 8.
[6] TSN, January 8, 2003, pp. 11-14.
[7] Id. at 22-23, 27.
[8] Records, pp. 8-10; Exhibits “H” and “I.”
[9] TSN, April 21, 2003, pp. 6-7.
[10] TSN, April 23, 2003, p. 8.
[11] TSN, June 3, 2003, pp. 3-5.
[12] Id. at 6-7.
[13] Rollo, pp. 21-41; Penned by Judge Tita Rodriguez-Villarin.
[14] G.R. No. 147678-87,
[15] Per Resolution dated September 8, 2004.
[16] Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez Jr. and Vicente S.E. Veloso concurring.
[17] G.R. No. 133579,
[18] Rollo, pp. 123-146; Appellee’s Brief.
[19] People
v. Arlalejo, G.R. No. 127841,
[20] TSN, April 21, 2003, pp. 13-16.
[21] Id. at 20-21.
[22] TSN, April 23, 2003, pp. 22-24.
[23] TSN, January 8, 2003, p. 24.
[24] Id. at 26-27.
[25] People
v. Giganto Sr., G.R. No.123077,