Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > December 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 73535 December 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS CAMAHALAN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 73535. December 18, 1992.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JESUS CAMAHALAN alias Esoy, a certain Bongi, a certain Astor and a certain Potot, Accused, JESUS CAMAHALAN alias Esoy, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Fil C. Veloso for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; STANDS IN THE ABSENCE OF IMPROPER MOTIVE TO FALSELY TESTIFY AGAINST THE ACCUSED; CASE AT BAR. — This case hinges on the credibility of the witnesses. In the view of the Court, the trial judge was correct in believing the testimony of the eyewitness for the prosecution rather than on the story concocted by the accused-appellant and his witness. Marcelo Estorco, who was with De Castro during that fatal incident, positively identified the accused-appellant as one of the three persons who stabbed and killed De Castro. He testified in a simple, straightforward manner, mentioning details of the incident that could not have been merely fabricated. Estorco explained how he was stabbed by one of the accused-appellant’s companions, how he fell from the jeep after having been stabbed, and how he actually saw Camahalan stab De Castro on the chest. Even during his cross-examination, Estorco stood fast on his testimony and the defense failed to trip him on any of the salient points of his narration of the incident in question. The assessment by the trial court of the credibility of the prosecution witness is entitled to much respect. It has not been shown that Estorco had any improper motive in testifying falsely against the accused-appellant, which would be against human nature and the presumption of good faith. Significantly, the accused-appellant himself admitted that he knew of no motive that Estorco might have in imputing the crime to him.

2. ID.; ID.; ALIBI; CANNOT PREVAIL OVER THE POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED BY THE EYEWITNESSES. — The alibi of the accused-appellant that he was not present when the deceased was killed cannot prevail over his positive identification by the eyewitness for the prosecution. The testimony of Antonio Flores that he saw Camahalan working at the Reflection Disco in the night of February 22, 1982, is insufficient. It was not enough to prove that the accused-appellant was somewhere else when the crime was committed. It was also necessary to show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission in view of his claimed presence at the Reflection Disco which, significantly, was on the same street where the stabbings occurred. In the absence of such proof, the positive identification of the accused-appellant as one of the assailants should prevail over his denial.

3. CRIMINAL LAW; CONSPIRACY; CONSTRUED IN CASE AT BAR. — The Court also agree that the accused-appellant conspired with his companions in the killing of De Castro. It is clear that he acted in concert with the others in stabbing the victim to death. It is enough that at the time the offense was committed, the participants had the same purpose and were united in its execution, as could be inferred from the attendant circumstances. In a conspiracy, the co-conspirator is not held responsible only for his own individual act, for the act of one is the act of all.

4. ID.; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; TREACHERY; PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. — The trial court correctly convicted the accused-appellant of murder qualified by treachery. Without any warning, he and his companions attacked the deceased in the absence of any provocation or aggression on the part of the latter. So sudden and unexpected was the attack that the deceased had no chance to defend himself against the four men who fell upon him.

5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHT; PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED; MAY BE OVERCOME WITH PROOF OF HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. — While every person accused of a crime is entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence, that presumption may be overcome with proof of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That proof has been satisfactorily established in this case.


D E C I S I O N


CRUZ, J.:


For the killing of Juanito de Castro on February 22, 1982, the accused-appellant Jesus Camahalan was charged with the crime of murder in the Circuit Criminal Court at Cebu City. The information read as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the 22nd day of February, 1982, at about midnight, in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with a sharp bladed instrument, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping with one another, with deliberate intent, with intent to kill Juanito de Castro, taking advantage of their superior strength, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of one Juanito de Castro by stabbing him on different parts of his body thus inflicting upon him the following injuries:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

HEMORRHAGE, MASSIVE SECONDARY TO MULTIPLE STAB WOUNDS, BODY AND (R) UPPER (EXTREMITY).

and as a consequence of said injuries Juanito de Castro died the following (d)ay.

Contrary to law with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, and evident premeditation and with the (attendance) of aggravating circumstance of the accused taking advantage of their superior strength.

After trial on the merits, judgment was rendered on August 23, 1982, the dispositive portion of which read:chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Jesus Camahalan alias Esoy, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER described in the aforequoted information. There being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances adduced and proven, the Court sentences the accused to the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Juanito de Castro in the sum of P12,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay proportionate costs.

SO ORDERED.

In this appeal, it is submitted that the trial court erred in believing the testimony of the lone prosecution witness although it was riddled with inconsistencies, improbabilities and absurdities, and in holding that the evidence of the prosecution had overturned the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the Accused-Appellants.

As found by the trial court, the Karate Club of the Vortex Libra Gym, situated at 1405 M.J. Cuenco Avenue, Mabolo, Cebu City, held a conference on February 22, 1932, between 10:00 and 12:00 in the evening. After the conference, Juanito de Castro, a karate instructor, and Marcelo Estorco, a club member, proceeded to the roadside, where they waited for a public vehicle to take them home. When a passenger jeep arrived, De Castro and Estorco boarded it, together with Camahalan, who seated himself in front of De Castro. Three companions of Camahalan, namely, Bongi, Artor and Potot, climbed up the side of the vehicle and held on to it as they stood on the running board.

When the jeepney was about 35 meters away from the gymnasium, Potot suddenly pulled out a knife and stabbed Estorco. The driver of the jeep immediately stopped the vehicle and Estorco fell to the ground.

As De Castro rose from his seat to help Estorco, Camahalan unexpectedly and without warning stabbed him on the chest. De Castro was still able to alight from the jeep, but Camahalan and his three companions rushed toward him, with Bongi stabbing him once or twice and Artor stabbing him twice. After the attack, the four fled.

Estorco and De Castro were brought to the Velez General Hospital. Estorco survived but De Castro died.

Dr. Jesus P. Cerna, police medico-legal officer, conducted the autopsy on De Castro and declared the cause of death as "hemorrhage, massive, secondary to multiple stab wounds, body and right upper extremity." 1

Camahalan was the only one arrested for the killing of De Castro. His three companions remained at large.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In his defense, Camahalan denied the charge against him. He claimed that in the evening of February 22, 1982, he was working as a watchman at the parking area of the Reflection Disco on M.J. Cuenco Avenue and that because his house was only fifty meters away, he did not have to take any public transportation to go to work. He just walked. 2 His alibi was corroborated by Antonio Flores, a barangay policeman, who testified that at midnight of February 22, 1982, he passed by the Reflection Disco and talked to Camahalan. 3

This case hinges on the credibility of the witnesses. In the view of the Court, the trial judge was correct in believing the testimony of the eyewitness for the prosecution rather than on the story concocted by the accused-appellant and his witness.

Marcelo Estorco, who was with De Castro during that fatal incident, positively identified the accused-appellant as one of the three persons who stabbed and killed De Castro. 4 He testified in a simple, straightforward manner mentioning details of the incident that could not have been merely fabricated. Estorco explained how he was stabbed by one of the accused-appellant’s companions, how he fell from the jeep after having been stabbed, and how he actually saw Camahalan stab De Castro on the chest. 5 Even during his cross-examination, Estorco stood fast on his testimony and the defense failed to trip him on any of the salient points of his narration of the incident in question. 6

The assessment by the trial court of the credibility of the prosecution witness is entitled to much respect. It has not been shown that Estorco had any improper motive in testifying falsely against the accused-appellant, which would be against human nature and the presumption of good faith. 7 Significantly, the accused-appellant himself admitted that he knew of no motive that Estorco might have in imputing the crime to him. 8

The alibi of the accused-appellant that he was not present when the deceased was killed cannot prevail over his positive identification by the eyewitness for the prosecution. The testimony of Antonio Flores that he saw Camahalan working at the Reflection Disco in the night of February 22, 1982, is insufficient. It was not enough to prove that the accused-appellant was somewhere else when the crime was committed. It was also necessary to show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission in view of his claimed presence at the Reflection Disco which, significantly, was on the same street where the stabbings occurred. In the absence of such proof, the positive identification of the accused-appellant as one of the assailants should prevail over his denial.

The Court also agrees that the accused-appellant conspired with his companions in the killing of De Castro. It is clear that he acted in concert with the others in stabbing the victim to death. It is enough that at the time the offense was committed, the participants had the same purpose and were united in its execution, as could be inferred from the attendant circumstances. 9 In a conspiracy, the co-conspirator is not held responsible only for his own individual act, for the act of one is the act of all. 10

While every person accused of a crime is entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence, that presumption may be overcome with proof of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That proof has been satisfactorily established in this case.

The trial court correctly convicted the accused-appellant of murder qualified by treachery. Without any warning, he and his companions attached the deceased in the absence of any provocation or aggression on the part of the latter. So sudden and unexpected was the attack that the deceased had no chance to defend himself against the four men who fell upon him.

The penalty of murder as provided for by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. However, since the death penalty has been proscribed under the 1987 Constitution, the trial court correctly imposed upon the appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity ordered by the trial court to be paid by the appellant to the legal heirs of the deceased in the amount of P12,000.00 is hereby increased to P50,000.00, conformably with the present policy of this Court.

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED, except as to the civil indemnity to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased which is increased to P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Griño-Aquino and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Exhibit "A" — Necropsy Report; TSN, May 10, 1982, p. 4.

2. TSN, August 2, 1982, pp. 13-17.

3. TSN, August 23, 1982, p. 3.

4. TSN, June 28, 1982, p. 4.

5. Ibid., pp. 4-6.

6. Id., pp. 10-23.

7. People v. Lacao, Sr., 201 SCRA 317 (1991).

8. TSN, July 15, 1982, p. 16.

9. People v. Bolima, 195 SCRA 614 (1991).

10. People v. Arroyo, 201 SCRA 616 (1991).




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






December-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 75032-33 December 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TIU

  • G.R. No. 85186 December 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO D. ABARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 94214 December 1, 1992 - CONSUELO REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100724 December 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO J. EVARDO

  • G.R. No. 101345 December 1, 1992 - NONITO J. BERNARDO v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC.

  • G.R. No. 84398 December 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO SUGURAN

  • G.R. Nos. 9627782 December 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABELARDO C. AVENDAÑO

  • G.R. No. 100416 December 2, 1992 - SAMUEL M. SALAS v. PURIFICACION CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 100878 December 2, 1992 - ESTRELLITA AGUILAR v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 69696 December 7, 1992 - AVELYN B. ANTONIO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 101680 December 7, 1992 - ENRIQUETA H. BERNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 102881 December 7, 1992 - TOYOTA MOTOR PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 74886 December 8, 1992 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 97492 December 8, 1992 - CANLUBANG SECURITY AGENCY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 92248 December 9, 1992 - VICENCIO T. TORRES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100486 December 9, 1992 - FELIX ZEPEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 101122-23 December 9, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIANO T. ALBORES

  • A.C. No. 3727 December 11, 1992 - NELSON BUENSUCESO v. JOELITO T. BARRERA

  • G.R. No. 65706 December 11, 1992 - TOP FORM MFG. CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 70113 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL ELIGINO

  • G.R. No. 70481 December 11, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 76656 December 11, 1992 - EUTIQUIANO CLUTARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 82514 December 11, 1992 - PAZ A. CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 86491 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO M. RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 87781 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOYET L. POMENTEL

  • G.R. No. 90297 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL PAMA

  • G.R. No. 92540 December 11, 1992 - ANIANO TORRES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 93664 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEMISTOCLES T. CASTOR

  • G.R. No. 93783 December 11, 1992 - EVANGELINE C. BUCAD v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 93828 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO EVARISTO

  • G.R. No. 95509 December 11, 1992 - JOHANNESBURG PACKAGING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96389 December 11, 1992 - REYNALDO ABAYA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 98185 December 11, 1992 - SIBAGAT TIMBER CORP. v. ADOLFO B. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 100386 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO C. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 101883 December 11, 1992 - LYDIA MELITON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 103982 December 11, 1992 - ANTONIO A. MECANO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 105088 December 11, 1992 - BIENVENIDO OCIER v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 107435-36 December 11, 1992 - SAIDAMEN B. PANGARUNGAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80161 December 14, 1992 - CANDIDA MARIANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 83030 December 14, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULITO MINDAC

  • G.R. No. 88915 December 14, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTO IRAN

  • G.R. No. 89980 December 14, 1992 - B.H. BERKENKOTTER & CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 97339 December 14, 1992 - NOSTRAM LABORATORIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 98046 December 14, 1992 - CEBU CONTRACTORS CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 101431 December 14, 1992 - ARABESQUE INDUSTRIAL PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 101682 December 14, 1992 - SALVADOR D. BRIBONERIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.C. No. 3806 December 16, 1992 - ARACELI S. DE JESUS v. CONSUELO COLLADO

  • G.R. No. 84731 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR BIENDO

  • G.R. No. 94470 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRED JACOLO

  • G.R. No. 95441 December 16, 1992 - CARLOS O. ELIDO, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100880 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO CLAUDIO

  • G.R. No. 102004 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE DABON

  • G.R. Nos. 94188-89 December 17, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL BATIS

  • G.R. No. 73535 December 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS CAMAHALAN

  • G.R. No. 82606 December 18, 1992 - PRIMA PARTOSA-JO v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 92144-49 December 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESURRECCION CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 92387 December 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON L. MENDOZA

  • A.M. No. 91-6-007 December 21, 1992 - REQUEST OF JUDGE ALEX Z. REYES

  • Adm. Matter No. 92-5-009-CTA December 21, 1992 - IN RE: ALEX Z. REYES

  • G.R. No. 93073 December 21, 1992 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100294 December 21, 1992 - BENITO A. TIATCO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. Nos. 102409-10 December 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 93986 December 22, 1992 - BENJAMIN T. LOONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98120 December 22, 1992 - FILOMENA R. MANCITA v. CEFERINO P. BARCINAS

  • G.R. No. 104139 December 22, 1992 - LYDIA M. PROFETA v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

  • A.M. No. R-668-P December 21, 1992 - HORACIO M. PASCUAL v. GERRY C. DUNCAN

  • G.R. No. 65230 December 23, 1992 - PROVINCE OF TARLAC v. FERNANDO S. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 91015 December 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAQUILLO L. MIANA

  • G.R. No. 105717 December 23, 1992 - JOSE L. ONG, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50837 December 28, 1992 - NARCISO BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 106094 December 28, 1992 - PSCFC FINANCIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 91115 December 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACALSO K. MAT-AN