FIRST
DIVISION
PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G. R. No. 116726
July 28, 1997
-versus-
LEONARDO
P. DE LA CRUZ,
Accused-Appellant.
D
E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Leonardo P. de
la Cruz was charged with parricide
before the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga for having beaten his wife
to death.[1]
He was found guilty as charged and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to
indemnify her heirs in the amount of P50,000.00, and to pay the costs.[2]
The facts.
At around eight
o'clock in the evening of 12 September
1991, Leonardo P. de la Cruz arrived home from the birthday party of a
friend where they had a drinking spree. He was met by his three [3]
children
and wife Violeta Tulud who served him dinner. After eating, he
confronted
Violeta, "I heard you have a lover." Her vehement denial led to a
violent
quarrel between husband and wife. Leonardo boxed and slapped Violeta.
Their
children could only cry like helpless spectators. She went down the
house
and ran out to the field. Leonardo pursued her. He overtook her some
three
[3] to four [4] meters away from their house. With both hands he pushed
her head hard against the ground and fractured her skull. Annabelle
witnessed
this incident through their window. Violeta then returned to their
house
and lay down on the papag.[3]
She asked her son Mac-Mac for a glass of water. A few minutes later she
died.cralaw:red
After midnight,
Violeta's mother Lourdes was fetched
by a brother of Leonardo and brought to the house of their mother where
Violeta's children were crying over the lifeless body of their mother.
Annabelle, 8-year old daughter of Violeta and Leonardo, narrated to her
grandmother that her father killed her mother. The information shocked
Lourdes and she lost consciousness. The following morning the Municipal
Health Officer autopsied the victim. The examination disclosed these
findings:
Head: Hematoma measuring 1-1/2 x 1/2 cm.
at the
outer brim of the left eyebrow; abrasions measuring 3 x 1-1/2 cm., 2 x
1/2 cm. and 2 x 1/2 cm., left side of the face. Nose: Presence of blood
clots on both nostrils. Neck: Fracture at the base of the skull, on
examination
the head rotates. Extremities: Abrasion measuring 3 x1 cm. at extensor
surface of right forearm. Hematoma measuring 1/2 x 1/2 cm. at the upper
1/3 of left thigh and 1 x 1/2 on the leg, middle portion. Cause of
Death:
Internal hemorrhage secondary to fracture, base of the skull.
Approximate
Date of Death: Sept. 13, 1991, between 12-1 A.M.[4]
The accused
admitted that he confronted his wife
that evening regarding her infidelity and slapped her once. She then
went
out of their house and ran away. As he was about to step down from the
house to follow her, she stumbled and fell face up on the earth dike.
Intending
to slap her again, he approached her but desisted because she was
crying.
He also cried and then returned to their house without assisting her.
Afterwards,
he saw her crawling her way back to their house. He went to the house
of
his mother. When he returned home. he informed his wife of his decision
to leave her with their children. She suddenly stoop up and trembled.
He
gave her a glass of water. He noticed that she had difficulty
swallowing
so he rushed her to the hospital. But it was an effort in futility
because
she was pronounced dead on arrival.
As aforesaid, the
trial court found the accused
liable for the death of his wife based on the testimony of their
daughter
Annabelle as well as the medical findings. Thus:
The testimony of the only eyewitness, the
couple's
8-year old first grader daughter Annabelle, was telling. She did not
say
so in so many words, but when she told her grandmother when asked about
the circumstances of her mother's death, that her parents had quarreled
and that her father had killed her mother she, in effect, said
everything
that needed to be said. The things that she left unsaid reveal far more
than what she said. When she testified that her father "dikduk[ed]" her
mother's face to the ground, she must have tried to convey that accused
dashed the victim's head to the ground with such force as to cause the
neck to snap and be wrenched from its base such that, as found by the
doctor
who examined the body, the neck was broken and the head could be
rotated
full circle. The girl's young and immature mind could not have
concocted
or made up such a story even if she were so minded.
The number and
nature of the injuries sustained by
the victim give the lie to the claim of the accused that she died
because
of an accidental fall. If she had merely tripped and fell as she ran
away
from him, as he claimed in court or fell from their house to the ground
after he had slapped and boxed her as he stated in his statement
Exhibit
"F" given before the chief investigator of the Lubao PNP, the body
would
have [borne] only a lump in the head and none of the other injuries.
The
number and nature of the injuries instead support the prosecution
version
of the incident.[5]
Appellant now
assails the credibility of his daughter
Annabelle. According to him, Annabelle could not have witnessed the
incident
in the field because of her testimony that although there was a light
on
the electric post, it could not reach the place of the incident so much
so that some of her answers to the questions propounded by the
prosecutor
were vague. The conclusion drawn by appellant from the particular
testimony
of Annabelle is misleading. She testified that the light on the
electric
post could not reach or light their house;[6]
nowhere in her testimony did she mention that it could not reach or
light
the place of the incident. Thus, contrary to the protestation of
appellant,
the place of the incident was sufficiently illumined as to enable
Annabelle
to witness and recount her mother's ordeal in the hands of her father
Q: Will you please tell us what your
father did
to your mother, Violeta Tulud on that date?
A: Pemugpug ne pu.
Q: When you said "pemugbug ne pu" do I
gather
from that statement of yours that your father mauled your mother?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When your father mauled your
mother, what
happened
to your mother?
A: She ran away, sir.
Q: Where did your mother go when she
ran
away?
A: In the field, sir.
Q: Did your father Leonardo de la Cruz
follow
your mother?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Can you tell us what your mother
did to
your
father in the field? (sic)
A: Dikduk ne pu (he pushed her head to
the
ground).[7]
Indeed, her
narration was clear and spontaneous.
She was even asked on cross-examination to demonstrate how her father
pushed
down her mother's head and without hesitation she answered:
A: By pushing both his hands downward,
sir.[8]
She was also
asked regarding the position of her
mother at that time and her quick response was:
A: She was lying face down, Sir.[9]
The above
testimonies were even strengthened by the
post-mortem findings. The examining physician explained that the
hematoma
on the outer brim of the left eyebrow of the victim could have been
caused
by a fall.[10]
The three [3] abrasions on the left side of her face could have been
brought
about through friction, force on materials or rough surface or by
hitting
something hard.[11]
The abrasion on the extensor surface of the right forearm could have
been
brought about by the rubbing of the skin against hard or rough objects.[12]
Both testimonial and documentary evidence of the prosecution, thus,
effectively
destroyed the claim of appellant that the victim stumbled by herself
and
fell face up on the earth dike.
Annabelle may
have supplied unresponsive answers
to some questions; yet a child of tender age cannot be expected to
understand
every question asked of her in the course of examination. Ample margin
of error and understanding should be accorded to young witnesses who,
much
more than adults, would be gripped with tension due to the novelty of
the
experience of testifying before a court.[13]
With regard to
the competence of a child to testify,
the decision on this question rests primarily with the trial judge who
sees the proposed witness, notices his manner, his apparent possession
or lack of intelligence, as well as his understanding of the obligation
of an oath. As many of his manners cannot be photographed into the
record,
the decision of the trial judge will not be disturbed on review unless
from what is preserved, it is clear that it was erroneous. It was not
so
in the case at bench.[14]
Moreover, there was no reason for Annabelle to fabricate charges
against
her own father. Clearly, appellant's guilt has been established beyond
reasonable doubt.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the
Decision appealed from convicting
LEONARDO P. DE LA CRUZ of parricide and sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua
and to indemnify the heirs of Violeta Tulud P50,000.00 plus costs is
AFFIRMED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Padilla and
Vitug, JJ., concur.
Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ.,
are
on leave.cralaw:red
___________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Information, 8 October 1991; Rollo, p. 16.
[2]
Decision penned by Judge Cesar P. Javier, RTC Br. 49, San
Fernando,
Pampanga; Rollo, p. 22.
[3]
An improvised bamboo bench.
[4]
Exh. "B;" Folder of Exhibits, p. 3.
[5]
Rollo, pp. 21-22.
[6]
TSN, 5 March 1992, p. 3.
[7]
TSN, 30 January 1992, p. 4.
[8]
TSN, 5 March 1992, p. 5.
[9]
Ibid.
[10]
TSN, 2 June 1992, p. 4.
[11]
Id., p. 5.
[12]
Id., p. 7.
[13]
People v. Salazar, G.R. No. 84391, [7 April 1993], 221 SCRA 170.
[14]
People v. Libungan, G.R. No. 102351, [22 March 1993], 220 SCRA 315. |