Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > July 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-26192 July 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MANA-AY, ET AL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-26192. July 31, 1968.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LORENZO MANA-AY alias Rolly and WILFREDO PEREZ alias Fred, Defendants-Appellants.

Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Cirilo Y. Ganzon and Severino C. Aguilar, for Defendants-Appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WITNESSES; CREDIBILITY; REMINDER BY HIS PARENTS OF CONTENTS OF HIS AFFIDAVIT, NOT AN ATTEMPT TO INDUCE HIM TO TELL FALSEHOOD. — Where the witness, a 13-year old boy, was found by the trial court to have been sincere and was telling the truth; that he remained steadfast in his narration of the facts of which he had been an eye-witness; that he remained composed despite the long and extensive cross-examination to which he was submitted, his testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. While it is true that he admitted that before the trial his father and mother reminded him of the contents of his affidavit, such admission could be reasonably construed in the sense that his parents, knowing his tender age, had occasion to remind him thereof. This is quite different from any direct or indirect attempt to induce him to tell falsehood.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


Early in the evening of October 3, 1964 the now deceased Rudy Postrado and two thirteen year old neighbors, Alfredo Ga-a and Francisco Pastera went to see a movie show at the St. Pius Institute in the poblacion of Pototan, Iloilo. Inside the theater while Postrado was seated between Ga-a and Pastera, three men seated immediately behind them demanded twenty centavos from him, which he was kind enough to give them. This notwithstanding, once the show was over and while they were on their way out of the theater, appellant Perez, who was one of the three men who sat immediately behind them, held Postrado by the arm and more or less forcibly dragged him towards the premises of the Roman Catholic Church of the town, with Postrado’s companions, appellant Lorenzo Mana-ay and the other companion of the latter who was not fully identified, following them. Perez, Mana-ay and their unidentified companion succeeded in dragging Postrado to a place behind the church where while Postrado’s arms were held by Perez and their unidentified companion, Mana-ay stabbed him at the back with a kitchen knife. Perez followed suit by stabbing him with an ice pick on the left side of the abdomen, while the third of the trio also stabbed him with a butcher’s knife on the right side of the abdomen. After this the three ran away.

Ga-a and Pastera reported the incident to the Chief of Police of Pototan, but as they could not give the names of the assailants no immediate action could be taken for their apprehension.

About an hour after the assault, Dr. Felix Catotol, a rural physician, accompanied by the municipal mayor, the Chief of Police and several policemen went behind the church premises where they found Postrado already dead because of the two stabs and one incised wound inflicted upon him as above described.

Two of the culprits — the appellants herein — were identified several months later purely by accident. One day, as Ga-a and Pastera happened to pass by the building where the municipal jail was located they saw appellant Mana-ay inside talking to a visitor, who turned out to be his co-appellant Perez. At that time, Mana-ay was in jail in connection with the killing of another person in the name of Oris Paredes. Ga-a and Pastera lost no time in informing the police authorities that the person in jail and his visitor were two of the trio who had killed Postrado. Thereupon the investigation regarding Postrado’s death was resumed and resulted in the filing of the corresponding charge of murder against them.

After due trial upon a plea of not guilty, the lower court found them guilty of murder and there being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances proven, sentenced each of them "to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of Rudy Postrado the sum of P6,000.00 for his death, and in addition thereto the sum of P7,200.00 as nominal damages for loss of earning capacity, plus moral damages of P5,000.00 and the costs."

From the above judgment both defendants appealed and urge its reversal claiming that the trial court erred: (1) in giving credence to the unbelievable and coached testimony of Alfredo Ga-a; (2) in finding that Ga-a and Pastera immediately reported the killing of Postrado to the Chief of Police; and (3) in convicting both of them.

As is obvious, the two main questions raised are purely factual.

In connection with the first — the credibility of witness Ga-a, the lower court "found Alfredo Ga-a to be very intelligent for his age. He understands the nature of his oath and of sufficient intelligence and discernment. He testified in a clear and satisfactory manner, and no motive has been shown which would have impelled him to impute the commission of such a grave felony on the accused aside from the promptings of his conscience and of his desire to state the truth. His facial expressions, the movements of his mouth and eyes, and the tone of his voice while on the stand and when answering the questions of the defense counsel in a long, exhaustive and severe cross- examination, fully satisfied the Court that Alfredo Ga-a was sincere and telling the truth. The Court has no reason to doubt the veracity of the testimony of Alfredo Ga-a. His testimony is worthy of full faith and credit."

The lower court arrived at the above conclusion inspite of the long and extensive cross-examination to which Ga-a was submitted by the defense. In the course thereof, however, he remained steadfast in his narration of the facts of which he had been an eye-witness. While it is true that he admitted that before the trial his father and mother had reminded him of the contents of his affidavit, this is really of little importance and utterly insufficient to destroy his credibility. His admission could be reasonably construed merely in the sense that his parents, perhaps knowing his tender age, had occasion to remind him of the contents of his affidavit. This, of course, is quite different from any direct or indirect attempt to induce him to tell falsehood.

As regards the second point — that Ga-a, as found by the trial court, informed the Chief of Police immediately about the commission of the crime — all we can say is that the finding is in accordance with the evidence and particularly supported by the fact that not long after the commission of the crime, the Municipal Mayor of Pototan, the Chief of Police, several policemen and Dr. Catoto arrived at the scene thereof where they found Postrado dead.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from being in accordance with law and the evidence, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., took no part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-24990 July 3, 1968 - WILLIAM C. PFLEIDER v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24804 July 5, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIANO PARAYNO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28561 July 8, 1968 - BARNEY FRENCH v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL

  • A.C. No. 102 July 15, 1968 - PAFLU v. HON. EMILIO C. TABIGNE

  • G.R. No. L-21175 July 15, 1968 - PASCUALA SOTTO PAHANG v. FILEMON SOTTO

  • G.R. No. L-18414 July 15, 1968 - ANTONIO M. PEREZ, ET AL v. J. ANTONIO ARANETA

  • G.R. No. L-24843 July 15, 1968 - MEMBERS OF THE CULT OF SAN MIGUEL ARCANGEL v. PEDRO NARCISO

  • G.R. No. L-24419 July 15, 1968 - LEONORA ESTOQUE v. ELENA M. PAJIMULA

  • G.R. No. L-24997 July 18, 1968 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. TERESITA OSETE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21027 July 20, 1968 - JUAN GUTIERREZ, ET AL. v. LUCIANO T. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22002 July 20, 1968 - CANUTO A. LIM, ET AL. v. TOMAS V. SABARRE

  • G.R. No. L-24099 July 20, 1968 - CLOTILDE CORREOS, ET AL. v. LADISLAO VALENZUELA Y PEREZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24951 July 20, 1968 - IN RE: JOSE CHUA CHU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26197 July 20, 1968 - ADELO C. RIVERA v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CORP., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18598 July 23, 1968 - TAN GUAN v. HON. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22682 July 23, 1968 - GORGONIO PABILING v. ISIDORO PARINACIO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23796 July 23, 1968 - LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, ET AL v. HON. FERNANDO HERNANDEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23934 July 25, 1968 - HIDPION P. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26353 July 29, 1968 - PERLA C. PACURSA v. SIMEON DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26568 July 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO MALILLOS

  • G.R. No. L-28842 July 29, 1968 - FAUSTINO CORTEZ v. HON. ONOFRE VILLALUZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24955 July 29, 1968 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24566 July 29, 1968 - ACCFA v. ALPHA INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24576 July 29, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-24444-45 July 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO DORIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-24396 July 29, 1968 - SANTIAGO P. ALALAYAN, ET AL. v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24072 July 29, 1968 - ANTONIO MA. CUI, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-24020-21 July 29, 1968 - FLORENCIO REYES, ET AL v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19852 July 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANSUETO JAMERO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23133 July 29, 1968 - VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23606 July 29, 1968 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-20158 July 29, 1968 - CANDELARIO ALMENDRAS, ET AL v. AMADO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21059 July 29, 1968 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22320 July 29, 1968 - MERCEDES RUTH COBB-PEREZ, ET AL v. HON. GREGORIO LANTIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20619 July 29, 1968 - REPARATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20794 July 29, 1968 - DY EN SIU CO, ET AL v. LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23919 July 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. HON. GUILLERMO S. SANTOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24984 July 29, 1968 - PHIL. COMM., ELEC. & ELECTRICITY WORKERS’ FED., ET AL v. HON. JUDGE RAMON O. NOLASCO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24388 July 29, 1968 - REGAL MANUFACTURING EMP., ASSO., ET AL v. HON. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27741 July 29, 1968 - R.B. INDUSTRIAL DEV. CO., LTD., ET AL v. HON. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28524 July 29, 1968 - ERNESTO NAVARRO, ET AL v. HON. TITO V. TIZON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24348 July 30, 1968 - FELICIDAD VIERNEZA v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-22304 July 30, 1968 - SAMAR MINING CO., INC. v. FRANCISCO P. ARNADO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22159 July 31, 1968 - EMILIANO CASTRO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24472 July 31, 1968 - PHIL. RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. PROSPERO GABATIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24924 July 31, 1968 - CRESENCIA ANTONEL, ET AL v. LAND TENURE ADMI., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26192 July 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MANA-AY, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24414 July 31, 1968 - DIONICIA J. CID, ET AL v. NANCY W. BURNAMAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22663 July 31, 1968 - HOC HUAT TRADING, ET AL v. HON. GUILLERMO S. SANTOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23245 July 31, 1968 - JUANITA RIVERA v. SILVINO CURAMEN

  • G.R. No. L-23491 July 31, 1968 - TAURUS TAXI CO., INC., ET AL v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-24140 July 31, 1968 - VICENTE ARRIETA v. MALAYAN SAWMILL COMPANY, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24557 July 31, 1968 - CITY OF MANILA v. TARLAC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24668 July 31, 1968 - ANDRES LAPITAN v. SCANDIA INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24987 July 31, 1968 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25550 July 31, 1968 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INS. CO., v. HON. W. DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-27072 July 31, 1968 - SURIGAO MINERAL RESERVATION BOARD, ET AL v. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26082 July 31, 1968 - NORBERTO DE LA REA v. HON. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-27084 July 31, 1968 - ANGELA ESTATE, INC., ET AL v. CFI NEGROS OCCI., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22542 July 31, 1968 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. SALVADOR CELORIO, ET AL

  • A.C. No. 122-J July 31, 1968 - NICOLAS SUPERABLE, JR. v. HON. GODOFREDO ESCALONA

  • G.R. No. L-13938 July 31, 1968 - PEDRO BUTIONG v. SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22577 July 31, 1968 - BENJAMIN WENCESLAO, ET AL. v. CARMEN ZARAGOZA, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23261 July 31, 1968 - ERNESTO VELUZ v. SOCORRO VELUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23689 July 31, 1968 - MAYO LOPEZ CARILLO, ET AL v. ALLIED WORKER’S ASSO. OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24514 July 31, 1968 - SAURA IMPORT & EXPORT CO., INC., ET AL v. JUDGE ARSENIO SOLIDUM, ET AL