|
|
|
|
|
PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
G. R. No. L-49044
October 12, 1983
-versus-
LAO WAN
SING alias GO TIOK,
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
The records disclose the following antecedents: In an Information, dated July 10, 1957, Lao Wan Sing alias Go Tick alias Wasing was charged with the crime of Arson in Criminal Case No. 964 of the then Court of First Instance of Aklan, Branch 11, reading as follows:
Antonio Abanilla - 25,760.00 Ester Laserna Jurilla - 14,000.00 Jose G. Quimpo - 40,000.00 Amada Q. Concepcion - 7,000.00 Fortunato Quimpo - 31,000.00 Modesta M. Baltazar - 24,000.00 Priscilla Quimpo-Magno - 20,000.00 Federico T. Luces and Trinidad M. Laserna - 10,000.00 Antonio Yu - 11,301.00 Francisco L. Sin - 39,581.73 Chua Eng - 23,769.27 Remedios Regalado - 20,137.59 Kalibo Rural Bank, Inc - 3,667.56 Gregorio Q. Mirto - 53,200.00 Manuel Alba - 17,380.00 Maria L. Abiera - 2,392.90 Dafrosa Martelino - 1,760.00 P403,475.05
2. That the crime was committed on the occasion of conflagration On July 31,
judgment was rendered by then Judge Ramon
Avancena finding appellant guilty of the crime charged and sentence him
to suffer reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the various persons who
suffered
losses in the fire. From the trial court Decision, Lao lan Sing
appealed
to this Court in G. R. No. L-16379
On May 5, 1965, during th ependency of the appeal, appelant through Ceferino Santos, filed the first Motion for New Trial[1] on the ground of recantation by two prosecution witnesses, particularly Guillermo Vidal and Jose Narce, who exacuted their affidavits of retraction on February 8, 1965 and April 8, 1965, respectively [Exhibits "1" and"6"]. Action on said Motion was deferred "until the case is taken up on the merits."[2] On December 17, 1971, this Court, through Mr. Justice Jesus G. Barrera, rendered judgment in the appealed case,[3] affirming in all respects the Decision of the Trial Court. On January 30, 1967, appellant, through Atty. Vicente J. Francisco, filed a prlnted Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for New Trial,[4] which was denied by this Court on May 24, 1967.[5] On June 6, 1967, appellant's Petition for leave to file Second motion for Reconsideration or New Trial, presented by Atty. Vicente E. del Rosario, having been granted, appellant filed said Second Motion on June 27, 1967. In a Resolution, dated August 18, 1972, this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Calixto Zaldivar, granted new trial and set aside the Decision of the lower Court dated July 31, 1959, as well as this Court's Decision of December 17, 1966 and its Resolution denying reconsideration dated May 24, 1967. In that Resolution, this Court "considered it necessary to ascertain the truthfulness of the recantation made by witnesses Narce and Vidal of their testimonies given at the trial" stating that "if the recantation of witnesses Vidal and Narce are true, there is no more credibility and positive identification of appellant with the advertence that this resolution should not be construed as reflecting any opinion on the value and force of new evidence that may be presented."[6] Pursuant to said Resolution, the records were remanded to the lower Court for new trial. The lower Court, then presided by Judge Dominador Quiroz, limited its authority pursuant to this Court's Resolution:
This was reiterated by defense counsel, Atty. Ceferino de los Santos, in a Manifestation before the commencement of the new trial when he said "the Supreme Court has limited the scope of authority on the trial of this Court to determine solely upon the veracity, truthfulness and sincerity of the recantation of evidence, so that it is indispensable on the part of the accused to produce the two recantation witnesses.[7] At the new trial, presided by Judge Dominador L. Quiroz and ultimately by Judge Amelia K. del Rosario, the following testified for the defense: Narce, Vidal, Ambrosio Medel, brother-in-law and witness to signature and thumbmark and who interpreted the affidavit in the language known to the affiant Narce, and Atty. Vicente S. Ocol, Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City before whom Narce swore to his Affidavit. Three other witnesses were presented to prove failure to serve the subpoena on Narce originally, although ultimately the latter was found and testified. The rebuttal witnesses for the prosecution were Dr. Gregorio Mirto, Cororacion Penaflor, Lourdes Motus and Dr. Iluminado Motus. The prosecution attempted to have NBI Agents Nos. 37 and 45, who had conducted the investigation in this case, subpoenaed but was informed that the former had died while the latter had already retired and was an invalid.[8] On June 18, 1977, after new trial, the lower Court. then presided by Judge Amelia K. del Rosario, rendered judgment convicting appellant anew. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
From the aforesaid judgment, appellant interposed this appeal. After the filing of Briefs including a Supplemental Brief by appellant, this Court considered the case submitted for decision on July 23,1979.[9] On September 28, 1979, appellant, through Atty. Ceferino de los Santos, filed another Motion for New Trial[10] [the 4th, if we include the Motion for Reconsideration or Motion for New trial dated January 30, 1967] on the ground of "new and trial evidence received/discovered" consisting of an Atty. Apolonia Francisco, one of the private prosecutors during the original trial, who stated therein that she had the coached prosecution witnesses, Jose Narce and in accordance with an outline given to her by the spouses, Dr. and Mrs. Iluminado Motus.[11] The affidavit was sworn to before Asst. Fiscal Esmeraldo R. Acorda of Quezon City. The Solicitor General filed an opposition to the new trial prayed for. This Court deferred action until the decision on the merits. In this appeal,
appellant alleges:
The factual findings made by this Court in the Decision of December 17, 1966 follow: The records show that Rizal Street is the business section of Kalibo, Aklan Province. It runs from north to south. On the north, it opens into 19 Martirez Street, which intersects it perpendicularly. Along the northern side of 19 Martirez Street, is the Kalibo Plaza. At around 5:40 o'clock in the afternoon of June 17, 1956, a fire broke out at what is known as Juanas Store located on the western side of Rizal Street. The fire spread northward, engulfing the next store, the Novelty Store and the Masings Store and, finally, the Municipal Building of Kalibo, which occupied the western corner of 19 Martirez and Rizal Streets. The fire also spread to two doors to the south, until it reached the Ang Tong Suy Store, which was also engulfed, and then stopped. When this fire at the eastern side of Rizal Street was already dying, and the roof of the Municipal Building of Kalibo had already collapsed, black smoke was seen coming from the direction of the kitchen of the New Plaza Bazar, owned by herein appellant, and located on the eastern side of Rizal Street across the municipal building. Said kitchen of appellant was located on the ground floor of the Abanilla Building, which was also partly occupied by the Kalibo Rural Bank. This second fire spread eastward and southward, and then jumped to the houses on the western side of Rizal street, grazing to the ground several houses, burning practically, the entire business section of Kalibo. It should also be mentioned. that opposite the municipal building across Rizal Street stood the Laserna Building, which belonged to the Laserna sisters.[12] One of the sisters. Lourdes, which is married to Iluminado Motus, an optometrist, resided in a portion at the upper slot of that building and operated a drug store on the ground floor.[13] The other Laserna sister is married to Dr. Gregorio Mirto and they own the Mirto Building. between the Laserna Building and the Mirto Building stood the Abanilla Building. These three structures are adjoining to one another and had interconnecting doors accessed to and from the Laserna Drug Store, dining room and kitchen of appellant. The store owned by appellant is known as the New Plaza Bazaar in the Laserna Building on the eastern corner of Rizal and Martirez Street, and is adjacent to the Laserna Drug Store.[14] The rear of the New Plaza Bazaar is connected to its dining room and thence to the appellant's kitchen. There are doors and corridors leading the Laserna Drug Store to said dining room and kitchen. The appellant's kitchen is actually located in th area of the Abanilla Building from where there is also access to appellant's kitchen. Presumably, the "kitchen" is restaurant as it adjoins other "kitchens" toward the south belonging to other individuals. The case for the prosecution during the original trial centered on the testimonies of Jose Narce, Guillermo Vidal, Coronacion Peñaflor and Dr. Iluminado Motus. In respect to Coronacion Peñaflor's testimony, referring in particular to appellant's identification, this Court's finding in the Resolution of August 18, 1972, was:
That testimony was to this effect:
The gist of the testimony of Narce, then 22 years old, single, a houseboy, who reached only Grade 1, during the original trial was that he knows only how to write his name; that at the time of the fire, he was a houseboy of Branding and Amading Kimpo; that when he heard the bells ringing, he went out to the street and saw the fire at Juana's store. Having been a houseboy of the Motuses for three years, he proceeded to the drugstore of his former employers to help evacuate the medicines and other things. He recognized appellant who was dressed in white shirt and pants also going back and forth evacuating his things. On his third trip from the second floor, Narce saw appellant pick up the lighted kerosene lamp from a table near the stairs and thereafter bring the lamp to the dining room adjoining. The witness followed appellant to the dining room and while he was about two arms-lengths from him [appellant], the latter removed the glass funnel of the lamp, increased the flame and placed said lamp on one of the shelves where there were boxes of shoes. When the accused left, Narce transferred the lamp to a table and took some shoes and merchandise to the plaza. When he returned, he passed by the kitchen door intending to hide some shoes for himself when he saw appellant holding a can of petroleum with one side raised and afterwards lighting a match and placing it on a pile of wood. Black smoke then rose and red flames followed. Fearful of what he saw, Narce ran away and went to the bodega of one, Garcia, where he used to sleep. Two days later, or on the following Tuesday, Narce told Dr. and Mrs. Iluminado Motus at the house of Mrs. Motus' mother about appellant's having set fire to his kitchen.[17] In Narce's Affidavit of Retraction executed on April 8, 1965, sworn to before Vicente S. Ocol, Clerk of Court of Quezon City, he stated that the "facts" he had testified to were not true and that he had testified under pressure from the Motuses who promised to give him work, and that "in conscience, I have to right the wrong I have done and do justice to the innocent."[18] During the new trial, Narce, then 35 years old, testified that after he heard the bells warning of the fire, he went to the plaza and stood at the bandstand and saw the fire at Juana's store; that flames were flying all around; that fire was seen from the kitchen of Abanilla; that when he went down from the bandstand, he met Dr. and Mrs. Motus whom he helped gather medicines. Narce emphasized that he did not go to the drugstore. He also declared that during the original trial, he testified upon the prodding of the Motuses and upon promise of a job and that he would be given P200.00 if they win the case; that he, Vidal, and Coronacion Penaflor were coached Atty. Apolonia Francisco at the Motus residence; and that when he executed the Affidavit of Retraction, he was working on and off in Pasay City and lived with one Ambrocio Medel.[19] As to how he happened to execute said Affidavit, he testified that he met the accused accidentally in Quiapo who told him "as if you kill me when you testify in the trial in Kalibo, I did not do anything in connection with that fire" and that if Narce symphathized with him, the former should help because he would be staying for 30 years in jail and might die there. Appellant further told him that Vidal had already executed an affidavit, and because of that Narce felt "bolstered". Narce did not have a permanent job at that time.[20] Narce's Affidavit was thereafter prepared at the house of Atty. de los Santos in Quezon City[21] and he swore the same before the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City. The contents of the Affidavit were translated to Narce by Ambrosia Medel, a driver, and with whom he was living.[22] Medel was also jobless at the time. Coming now to Vidal. This Court in its Decision in L-16379 synthesized his testimony during the original trial when he was then 20 years old, married, a laborer, thus:
In his Affidavit of Retraction executed on February 18, 1965, and sworn to before Gregorio L. Lira, Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance of Iloilo, he stated that his testimony during the original trial that he saw appellant as the one inside the kitchen setting fire to a pile of firewood and papers in his kitchen, was a mere guess and that he testified the way he did upon the urgings of the Motuses and the Mirtos, who were among the victims in the Kalibo fire, and whom he could not refuse due to the many favors they had showered on him; and that, in the conflicting emotions between gratitude and peace of mind he "had to ease and clear my conscience and to do justice to the innocent."[24] At the new trial, Vidal, then 36 years old, married, already a public school teacher in elementary education, declared that the second fire started from the Abanilla kitchen which he had seen from the window of the second storey of the Mirto residence. He declared that he did not go to the drugstore of the Motuses nor was he instructed by Dr. Mirto to help the Motuses although he helped in saving the Mirto properties. He allegedly pinpointed appellant upon the urgings of his benefactors, the Motuses, who gave him a job after enduring hardship in his former employment after his stint with the Mirtos.[25] On how he happened to execute his Affidavit, he stated that while he was on vacation in Batan, Aklan, as he was then residing in Ampatuan, Cotabato, he met the accused accidentally in Kalibo, Aklan. The accused told him that "because you have testified in the trial and now I will be sentenced for 30 years imprisonment and probably I will die there". As his conscience was disturbed, he told the accused that he would retract. He then went to Iloilo City where he met the accused at the Happy Landing Hotel on February 17 where he showed the draft of the statement that he had prepared to Atty. Ceferino de los Santos. The latter made a slight correction and thereafter they proceeded to the Court of First Instance at Iloilo City where the Affidavit was typewritten and subscribed to the same before the Clerk of Court of said Court.[26] As heretofore stated, the function of the lower Court during the new trial, with which defense counsel was in conformity, was to determine the veracity of the recantation of evidence by Narce and Vidal. We affirm the lower Court's finding in this regard when it said:
As between Narce's two versions, one given at the original trial and the other at the new trial, that given at the original trial deserves more credence. As noted by the lower Court:
As to Narce's execution of his Affidavit of Retraction, We quote with approval the lower Court's assessment thereof:
As rebuttal witnesses during the new trial, both Dr. Motus and Mrs. Lourdes Motus emphatically denied that Narce had testified originally upon their proddings and upon promise of a job at the Park View Lot. As they respectively testified, at the time, that hotel had not yet been constructed. And if he was employed thereafter, it was more likely to help him with a job and because they needed helpers. The Motuses learned of what appellant had done when Narce himself disclosed it to them a few days after the fire. The Motuses told him to relate what he had seen.[31] Vidal's original testimony is likewise more credible. As the Trial Court had aptly pointed out:
As this Court has held, retraction of witnesses at a new trial made after a judgment of conviction as in this case is to be taken warily and to be rejected where rebutted by other witnesses.[35] Besides, even assuming that Narce and Vidal owed the Motuses and the Mirtos a debt of gratitude, it does not necessarily follow that to repay them, they would testify falsely against appellant and charge him with a crime as serious as Arson. Vidal's pretense that he prepared the draft of his own Affidavit of Retraction is negated by the fact that during the new trial, he even requested the help of an interpreter so he could speak in Hiligaynon because his diction and expression in English was poor. And yet the Affidavit was in good English. As the Trial Court had observed:
Vidal also denied having received any money from appellant in Iloilo City so he could meet with Atty. Ceferino de los Santos thereat. The fact remains, however, that he had to stay overnight at the Happy Landing Hotel in order to be able to meet with said counsel and thereafter had to go back to Cotabato. As the Trial Court opined, "it could not believe that the accused could have allowed the witness who was to do him a favor to undertake the expenses in Iloilo." The defense also stresses that the delay of Narce and Vidal in immediately informing other people that appellant had set fire to his own kitchen proves that their testimony is unworthy of belief. The delay has been satisfactorily explained, however. Both were seized by fear when they saw what appellant had done. Vidal was also afraid of physical harm on his person. Besides, the evidence shows that Narce had disclosed to the Motuses two days after the fire what he had witnessed, while Vidal had also done to the same to his father first and then to Dr. Mirto. That Dr. Motus did not reveal the information furnished him by Narce and Vidal to the PC and the Municipal Council, of which he was a member, was also explained by him in that he feared reprisals against the witnesses besides the fact that they might succumb to pressure, specially considering that investigation was conducted at the bandstand at the public plaza. The Motuses, instead, preferred to solicit the aid of the NBI at Iloilo. In fact, they brought Jose Narce to the NBI in Iloilo as early as July, 1956, or the month following the fire. Narce's affidavit was taken by the NBI and signed before NBI agents. It is to be noted also that the Motuses and the Mirtos adhered to their testimonies during the original trial and did not lose interest in the case despite the lapse of 23 years from the date of the occurrence of the fire and the dates of their subsequent testimonies at the new trial, not to speak of their requests for early resolution in this case.[37] They would have had no motive to impute the serious crime of Arson to appellant unless they had been informed by Narce and Vidal, respectively. The NBI and the Fiscal conducted their own respective investigations, which also accounts for the delay in the filing of the criminal charge. In their testimonies during the new trial, Narce and Vidal also declared that the second fire started at the Abanilla building implying that it did not start from appellant's kitchen. That kitchen, however, is just on the first floor of the Abanilla building. Coronacion Penaflor also testified at the original trial and confirmed at the new trial that she saw a sudden burst of fire followed by heavy dark smoke inside the kitchen of the New Plaza Bazar. True, this Court discounted her testimony in the Resolution dated August 18, 1972, supra, however, what was rejected was her identification of appellant and not the rest of her testimony. The defense also intimates that the Abanilla fire could have been caused by flames flying from the Masing store across the street which could have reached the powder and chemicals kept by Abanilla who was a manufacturer of fireworks and firecrackers. The evidence does not disclose, however, any explosion which would surely have occurred if that were the case. The defense contention that the active prosecution of the case was done by the private prosecutor and, therefore, the evidence presented cannot be given weight or credit is not deserving of any serious consideration. While the private prosecutor actively conducted the trial, an Assistant Fiscal was always present and the proceedings were under his direction and control. In the Supplemental Memorandum filed on December 6, 1982, appellant, through another counsel, Atty. Gil Venerando R. Racho, additionaly contends that respondent Trial Court erred in failing to make in its Decision findings of fact other than findings on truthfulness of the recantation considering that the former judgment was set aside and, therefore, the theory is advanced that the Decision under review should be declared null and void.[38] As already explained, it was this Court that had limited the scope of authority of the lower Court at the new trial to ascertaining the truthfulness of the recantation made. This was confirmed by Atty. Ceferino de los Santos in his manifestation before the lower Court prior to the new trial, and reiterated by Atty. Felix V. Macalalag, who appeared as collaborating counsel, that "the Supreme Court sent back the records to this Court to determine better whether the recantation should be given faith".[39] Appellant's brief also admits that "the only issue raised before the Court of origin on the new trial is whether the recantation made by Vidal and Narce of their testimonies given at the trial are true".[40] Further, there is absolutely no basis to the allegation of the defense in its Supplemental Memorandum that appellant has been denied due process of law by the Court a quo because of "absence of evidence on record to support its findings". Basically, the issue is one of credibility as between the contradictory testimonies of Narce and Vidal during the original trial and at the new trial, and our own conclusions support those of the lower Court. Appellant's additional argument is that the lower Court erred in applying the doctrine in People vs. Saliling, 69 SCRA 427 [1976], reading:
Even assuming it to be inapplicable, actually, the ruling in said case was not the only basis of the Trial Court for rejecting the recanted testimonies. That Court made a careful comparison between the original and retracted testimonies, the circumstances under which they were given, as well as the motives behind the changes in testimony. Thereby, the Court a quo correctly applied the criteria laid down in People vs. Ubina et al., 97 Phil. 526, as follows:
Lastly, the Motion for New Trial[42] based on the Affidavit of Atty. Apolonia Francisco must be denied. As pointed out by the lower Court, if Atty. Francisco conferred with the witnesses before they were presented, that was but natural. In fact, the Motuses admitted that Atty. Francisco met with Narce, Vidal, and Coronacion Penaflor, but merely to elicit from them what they knew and not to coach them nor to coerce them to testify against appellant. The Motuses and Dr. Mirto all denied having coached Narce and Vidal, respectively, as the latter two alleged during the new trial. In the words of Dr. Motus, they did not coach Narce because he knows better what he had seen and on what he will testify.[43] Coronacion Penaflor likewise denied having been coached by either the Motuses, the Mirtos or Atty. Francisco. She admitted that Atty. Francisco had convened Narce, Vidal and herself and asked them whether they had knowledge of the case, and when they replied in the affirmative, she just told them to tell the truth when they testify in Court.[44] And on cross examination, she declared that she had also given a sworn statement to the NBI, the PC, and the Municipal Council,[45] thereby negating the defense contention that she was merely "coached" on how to testify during the original trial. As to the non-presentation by the prosecution of Atty. Francisco as a rebuttal witness, it manifested that it was due to her senility as she was then around 80 years of age.[46] Although the defense stoutly denies such condition, it is to be noted that neither did it present her as its own witness to affirm the contents of her Affidavit. All told, other than their own self-serving claim, We have found no evidence to support the assertions of Narce and Vidal that during the original trial, they had falsely testified against appellant out of extraneous considerations such as gratitude, or because they were coached to testify in a particular way. Our findings are that their testimonies during the original trial represent the truth. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in toto. The Motion for New Trial filed by the defense on September 28, 1979 is hereby denied. Costs against accused-appellant, Lao Wan Sin alias Co Tiok, alias Wasing. SO ORDERED. Abad Santos,[**] Plana, Escolin,[**] and Relova, JJ., concur. ___________________________________________
[**]
Associate Justices Vicente
Abad Santos and Venicio Escolin were
designated
to sit in the First Division vice Associate Justices Claudio Teehankee,
Chairman, and Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr. who are on official leave,
pursuant
to Special Order No. 251 dated September 23, 1983. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|