SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
123054
June 10, 2003
-versus-
FAUSTO OBEDO Y
BORBAJO
ALIAS "TITING",
Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is an appeal from
the Decision[1]
dated February 1, 1995, of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 1), Tagum,
Davao, insofar as it finds appellant Fausto Obedo guilty of robbery
with
homicide and sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
and to pay the heirs of the victims the amount of P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity for the deaths of spouses Wilfredo and Jinky Luayon,
P40,000.00
as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages,
and
to pay the costs.
On May 7, 1990, appellant
was charged with Robbery with Homicide under Art. 294, par. 1, in
relation
to Arts. 293 and 249 of the Revised Penal Code, in an Information
docketed
as Criminal Case No. 7382, which reads:
That on or
about February 21, 1990, in the Municipality of Kapalong, Province of
Davao,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named
accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with Arnold
Ranalan
Alias "Opong" and Alias "Tony" Villamor, who are now deceased, armed
with
a revolver, with intent of gain and by means of violence and
intimidation
of persons, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
take,
steal and carry away cash money amounting to TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00)
PESOS, Philippine Currency, belonging to the spouses Wilfredo Luayon
and
Jinky Luayon, and on the occasion of the said robbery, the said
accused,
with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously
attack, assault and shoot Wilfredo Luayon and Jinky Luayon, thereby
inflicting
upon them wounds which caused their death, and further causing actual,
moral and compensatory damages to the heirs of the victims.
Contrary to law.[2]
When arraigned on July
31, 1990, appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged; whereupon
trial ensued.chanrobles virtual law library
The prosecution presented
seven witnesses, namely: Dominador Luayon, Pat. Aguedo Ganiera, Jesus
Saraga,
Abundo Mahinay, Dionisio Luayon, Carolina Saraga, and Jerry Abando.cralaw:red
The gist of their testimonies
is as follows:
The victims, spouses
Wilfredo Luayon and Alice "Jinky" Luayon, are residents of Kapalong,
Davao.
Wilfredo was a farmer who tilled his own rice field and earned his
income
by selling palay (rice produce) after drying it.[3]
On February 19, 1990, after selling palay, he kept his earnings,
amounting
approximately to P20,000.00, in a cavan (wooden chest) inside his house.[4]
On February 21, 1990,
at around 7 o’clock in the evening, appellant together with Arnold
Ranalan
and Tony Villamor went to the house of Jesus Saraga and requested the
latter
to accompany them to the house of Wilfredo. Without asking any
questions,
Saraga agreed. On the way to the house of Wilfredo, Saraga saw
Ranalan
remove a gun tucked in his waist on the left side and held it.
After
escorting the three, Saraga went home.[5]
At around 7:30 o’clock in the evening, Dominador Luayon, the brother of
Wilfredo, heard a commotion in the latter’s house. Dominador was
at the balcony of his house, 50 meters away from Wilfredo’s house, when
he heard bottles falling to the floor. Shortly thereafter, he
heard
his sister-in-law, Jinky, crying for help, so he hurriedly ran towards
the house. He slowly walked to the door but, finding it locked,
went
to the yard instead. He heard his brother uttering the words,
"Why
are you doing this to us, Pong?", after which, he heard gunshots.
Out of fear, Dominador laid on the ground, around four to five meters
from
one of the windows of the house, and waited. He then heard the
window
being destroyed, and after a while, saw two persons jump out from the
window.
Because the house was lighted by a kerosene lamp, he saw appellant
Fausto
Obedo, alias Titing,[6]
jump first, followed by Arnold Ranalan, alias Pong.[7]
Sensing that something happened, Dominador got up and shouted for
help.
His brother-in-law, Alvis Milla, arrived, and they both went inside the
house through the broken window. He first saw Jinky upstairs,
hardly
breathing with her baby alive and playing with her bloodied
breasts.
He next saw Wilfredo, his head hanging in the crib.[8]
Moments later, Dionisio
Luayon, another brother of Wilfredo, arrived. He saw the wooden
chest
ajar with things and some loose coins scattered on the floor. He
attended to Jinky who whispered to him that they were robbed by the
appellant
and Ranalan. Both victims died before they could be brought to
the
hospital.[9]
The Certificates of Death of the two victims reveal that they died of
irreversible
shock and gunshot wounds.[10]chanrobles virtual law library
At around 10 o’clock
in the evening, riding in a motorcycle, appellant, Ranalan and Villamor
went to Abundio Mahinay’s house to borrow a shirt from him as Ranalan’s
shirt was stained with blood.[11]
Pat. Aguedo Ganiera,
chief intelligence and member of the investigation section of the
Integrated
National Police (INP) in Kapalong, Davao, and his team conducted a
follow-up
investigation on the incident. According to his investigation report,[12]
on February 28, 1990, his team captured Arnold Ranalan who voluntarily
confessed and admitted to have participated in robbing and killing the
Luayon spouses in Kapalong, Davao. However, a few minutes after
he
was captured and handcuffed, Ranalan managed to escape and held a boy
hostage.
The PC/Alsa Masa Detachment, which assisted Pat. Ganiera’s team, was
prompted
to subdue Ranalan by shooting him. Ranalan was rushed to the
Davao
Doctors Hospital and later on transferred to Davao Medical Center where
he was treated. Unfortunately, a few hours later, he died due to
the gunshot wound he had sustained.cralaw:red
The team next made a
follow-up on Antonio Villamor, alias "Tony," in Davao City. They
learned that he was allegedly shot to death by unidentified persons at
Claveria, Davao City.cralaw:red
As to appellant Obedo,
the team was able to arrest him in Maniki, Kapalong, Davao on March 1,
1990 at around 7:00 o’clock in the evening and turned him over to the
Station
Commander for proper disposition.cralaw:red
On the other hand, the
defense presented three witnesses, namely: Jose Rana, Vicente Gutierrez
and appellant Fausto Obedo.cralaw:red
Appellant’s defenses
are denial and alibi. According to him, he is engaged in the
business
of buying and selling livestock. He lives in Kapalong, Davao but
he frequents several barangays in order to buy pigs, carabaos and
cows.
He claims that on February 21, 1990, he went to Gabuyan, a neighboring
barangay, at around 10:30 o’clock in the morning because he was
informed
that a resident is looking for a buyer of carabao. He headed home to
Kapalong
at around 11 o’clock in the morning and stayed home for the rest of the
day to attend to his sand and gravel business. According to him, he was
arrested without a warrant and detained on February 28, 1990 although
no
complaint or information against him has been filed yet. He
admitted
that he knew Wilfredo and Jinky Luayon personally, as he buys carabaos
and pigs from them regularly, the last of which was about a month
before
the incident. However, he denies that he killed and robbed the
victims.
He instead intimated that Jesus Saraga, who is a known tambay, and the
two others (Ranalan and Villamor) may have had a hand in the incident.[13]
The defense presented
Jose Rana and Vicente Gutierrez to prove the good moral character of
the
appellant. According to Rana, he has known the appellant for 15
years
because the latter served as his agent in buying cows, carabaos and
pigs.
He knows accused to be a farmer and a contractor of sand and gravel.[14]
Gutierrez, on the other hand, testified that he has known the accused
since
childhood. According to him, the accused has no criminal record
nor
was he ever involved in any criminal incident except for the instant
case.[15]
On February 1, 1995,
the trial court rendered its decision. It held that circumstantial
evidence
proved that accused is a co-conspirator of Ranalan and Villamor in the
commission of the crime of robbery with homicide, surpassing direct
evidence
in weight and probative value. It gave weight to the affirmative
testimonies of witnesses over the denial of the accused. The
dispositive
portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, this Court finds the accused FAUSTO OBEDO y
Borbajo,
39 years of age, married to Fely C. Bitangga, alleged
businessman/farmer,
and resident of Maniki, Kapalong, Davao, guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Robbery with Homicide penalized under Article 293 and
249
of the Revised Penal Code, as charged in the information, and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with all the
accessory
penalties provided by law, and to indemnify the heirs of the
victims
- Wilfredo and Alice "Jinky" Cuerpo-Luayon - as
follows:chanrobles virtual law library
1.
-
As indemnity for each death: FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS, or, a
total
of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS for the two (2) deaths;
2. -
As
and for moral damages: TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS, or, a total
of FORTY THOUSAND (P40,000.00) PESOS for the two (2) deaths;
3. -
As
and for actual and compensatory damages, which includes funeral
expenses,
burial and other necessary expenses: FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS,
or, a total of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS for the two (2)
deaths;
and to restitute to
the
lawful heirs of the deceased-victims spouses, Wilfredo and Alice C.
Luayon,
the amount of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency,
which
is the amount robbed from said victims and as reflected in the
information,
and to pay the costs.
In the service of
this
sentence, said accused Fausto Obedo y Borbajo, alias "Titing" shall
immediately
be turned over to the custody of The Director, Bureau of Corrections,
National
Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, pursuant to Supreme Court
Circular
No. 4-92-A dated April 20, 1992, amending SC Administrative Circular
No.
4-92 dated January 14, 1992, and is therefore hereby ordered committed
to the custody of the Provincial Warden of Davao Province preparatory
to
his remittance to the National Bilibid Prisons. As a consequence,
the bail bond posted by said accused is hereby ordered cancelled.
Let the corresponding mittimus or commitment order be issued forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[16]
Hence, the present
appeal.
Appellant claims that there is no evidence to support his conviction
and
that the constitutional presumption of innocence remained untarnished
and
can be invoked in favor of the accused.[17]
The Court finds that
the trial court erred in finding the appellant guilty of robbery with
homicide.chanrobles virtual law library
In order to be convicted
of robbery with homicide, four (4) elements are necessary: (a) the
taking
of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against
the
person; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is
characterized
by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and, (d) on the occasion of the
robbery
or by reason thereof the crime of homicide was committed.[18]
It is necessary that the robbery itself be proved as conclusively as
any
other essential element of the crime.[19]
For there to be robbery, there must be taking of personal property
belonging
to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against or
intimidation
of any person or by using force upon things.[20]
In this case, aside
from the fact that no inventory was conducted after the incident, as is
usually done in robbery cases,[21]
the prosecution did not convincingly establish the corpus delicti of
the
crime of robbery. Corpus delicti has been defined as the body or
substance of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact
that
a crime has actually been committed.[22]
As applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by
someone
of the particular crime charged.[23]
In this case, the element of taking as well as the existence of the
money
alleged to have been lost and stolen by appellant was not adequately
established.
We find that no sufficient evidence stands to show either the amount of
money stolen from the victims’ wooden chest or if any amount was in
fact
stolen from them at all. While the Information against appellant
alleged that he, together with Ranalan and Villamor, stole money
amounting
to P10,000.00 from the victims, Dionisio Luayon, Wilfredo’s brother,
who
claim to have knowledge of his brother’s earnings kept in the wooden
chest,
could not state with certainty the exact amount placed in the wooden
chest
four days before the incident as well as the amount of money that was
left
after payment of debts before the alleged robbery. He testified
thus:
Q
Will you please tell this Honorable Court what was the source of income
of your brother during his lifetime?
A
He was also a farmer, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Now, tell us, please, Mr. Dionisio Luayon, if days before the incident
of February 21, 1990 your brother told you that he has income from the
farm?
A
Yes.cralaw:red
Q
Tell us what was the source of this income?
A
Because he sold palay, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Do you have a personal knowledge how many sacks of rice that was sold
by
your brother?
A
About seventy (70) sacks.cralaw:red
Q
Earlier you said that your occupation is a farmer. From that
experience,
can you tell this Honorable Court if we are to relate in terms of
income,
in money, how much these seventy (70) sacks of rice will produce?
A
In my estimate, sir, about Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos.cralaw:red
Q
So, this money was kept by your brother in the house?
A
Yes.cralaw:red
Q
In what specific place of the house?
A
In their cavan, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Now, when you were inside the house on that evening of February 21,
1990
were you able to see this cavan you are referring now?
A
Yes.chanrobles virtual law library
Q
Tell this Honorable Court what was the situation of this wooden chest
when
you saw it that evening?
A
It was already opened, sir.cralaw:red
Q
What else?
A
The things that were inside were already scattered.cralaw:red
Q
Was the money kept by your brother in that wooden chest?
A
Yes.[24]
(Emphasis ours)
On cross-examination,
he testified:
Q
Now, you said you saw the chest where your brother used to keep his
money.
Are you telling the Court that you actually saw your brother putting
his
money inside the chest or you were just presuming or you were just told?
A
I saw it, sir.cralaw:red
Q
How many days before the alleged robbery did you see your deceased
brother
put his money in that chest?
A
About four (4) days, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Did you.do you know how much money he put in that chest?
A
Not less than Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos.cralaw:red
Q
Did he count the money before you when he placed that money in the
chest?
A
Yes.chanrobles virtual law library
Q
And did you tell Dominador and Alvis that that chest contains the money
of your deceased brother?
A
I did not tell them, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Did you not tell Dominador and Alvis that that chest was the receptacle
of the money of your deceased brother in the amount of Twenty Thousand
(P20,000.00) Pesos?
Did you not tell them?
A
The actual?
Q
At that time when you went there in the night of the incident?
A
I told them that the money was placed there at the wooden trunk.cralaw:red
Q
Now, when you were asked by Atty. Arafol whether the chest still
contains
the money when you arrive you said, yes.cralaw:red
Did you remember having
been asked that question and answered yes?
A
Yes, the loose change was there but the paper bills were not already
there.cralaw:red
Q
So, you were very sure that those changes.what do you mean by
changes,
coins or also papers?
A
Loose coins.cralaw:red
Q
Did you see your deceased brother put those coins there at the time
when
he counted the money of P20,000.00?
A
Yes.cralaw:red
Q
How much coins did he place there?
A
I do not know about the loose coins.cralaw:red
Q
How about the paper bills, how much?
A
About Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos.cralaw:red
Q
So, when you stated a while ago that your deceased brother put Twenty
Thousand
(P20,000.00) Pesos there it is not true because it is more than
P20,000.00,
after all?
A
Because it was only my estimate, sir.cralaw:red
Q
So, the P20,000.00 you mentioned was only estimated by you, you do not
know really that it was the exact amount?chanrobles virtual law library
A
Yes, because he might have gotten some of the amount because he has
debts
considering that he is a farmer.[25]
(Underscoring ours)
Clearly therefrom, the
amount of money in the chest on the date when the alleged robbery took
place was not established. There was no adequate proof of the
robbery.
Aside from the loose coins that were found, the prosecution failed to
show
conclusively that the chest contained money at the time of the
incident.
There was no substantial link between the alleged loss of the contents
of the wooden chest and the appellant, for the money was never seen in
the possession of the appellant.[26]
While there is testimony that the victims had money four days before
the
incident, the hiatus between the acquisition of the money by the
victims
and the commission of the delict itself was long enough for the victims
to be able to send the money elsewhere,[27]
such as to pay off their debts, as testified to by Dionisio
himself.
The prosecution failed to show by concrete evidence that certain amount
of money was taken by the appellant.cralaw:red
The trial court erred
in relying on the testimony of Dionisio Luayon to establish that
robbery
has been committed by appellant. It is axiomatic that evidence to
be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness
but must also be credible in itself, such that common experience and
observation
of mankind lead to the inference of its probability under the
circumstances.[28]
In criminal prosecution, the court is always guided by evidence that is
tangible, verifiable and in harmony with the usual course of human
experience
and not by mere conjecture or speculation.[29]
Testimonies that do not adhere to this standard are necessarily
accorded
little weight or credence.[30]
The Court finds the
narration of Dionisio Luayon on the circumstances pertaining to the
ante
mortem statement of Jinky Luayon improbable and beyond belief for being
contrary to human nature and experience. He testified as follows:
Q
What about his wife?
A
She was almost dying and I think she has something to say.cralaw:red
Q
What did you do upon observing that manifestation from the wife of your
brother?
A
I went nearer and I held her and asked her, (Witness demonstrating by
raising
his two hands as if holding something).cralaw:red
Q
Now, when you embraced her, what did you do?chanrobles virtual law library
A
I asked her who was responsible.cralaw:red
Q
Was she able to answer?
A
Yes.cralaw:red
Q
Tell us what was her answer, please?
A
According to her, they were robbed by Titing and Ompong.cralaw:red
ATTY. ARAFOL:
Q
Now, if this Titing you said earlier, if presented to you, you can
identify
him?
A
Yes.cralaw:red
Q
Why can you identify him?
A
Because he is a resident of Gabuyan for a long time and I am familiar
to
him also because I spent my schooldays in Gabuyan, sir.cralaw:red
Q
You did not report to the police authorities of Kapalong that your
sister-in-law
at the brink of her death told you that it was a certain Titing and a
certain
Ompong who robbed her and her husband?
A
No, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Of course, the police authorities of Kapalong investigated this
incident?
You know that?
A
Yes.chanrobles virtual law library
Q
And you never volunteered to testify in spite of the fact that you know
that the police authorities investigated the death of your
sister-in-law
and your brother, you never offered to give him a statement as to
that particular aspect wherein your dying sister-in-law told you that
it
was Ompong and Titing who robbed them?
A
Because I already told the story to my parents.cralaw:red
Q
You never told this matter to the police, only to your parents?
A
Yes.cralaw:red
Q
What about except your
parents, who else did you tell this incident or report this incident?
A
My other sister.cralaw:red
Q
What is the name of that other sister?
A
Josephine Luayon.cralaw:red
Q
When you told this incident to your parents did not your parents advise
you to see the police authorities especially the Chief of the INP, Mr.
Galagala?
A
He told me that I will tell it, sir, if it will be needed.cralaw:red
Q
So, at that time you did not believe that your testimony or your
statement
was necessary in order to help the authorities solve the crime?
A
I was thinking, sir.cralaw:red
Q
And yet you never reported this incident to the police?chanrobles virtual law library
A
No, sir.cralaw:red
Q
You know Chief Galagala of the police of Kapalong? You know him
personally,
is it not?
A
Yes.cralaw:red
Q
As a matter of fact you have known him for quite a long time even
before
February 1990 before this incident you are relating here?
A
Yes.[31]
The testimony of Dionisio
goes beyond logic and normal human experience. First, we find it
extremely incredible that Jinky who was shot and in the brink of death
would reply to Dionisio’s query as to who was responsible, that they
were
robbed by appellant and Ranalan instead of telling him who shot her and
her husband. Second, we likewise find it starkly unbelievable
that
if Jinky really told Dionisio who the culprits were, he failed to give
the names of appellant and Ranalan to the police investigators as the
persons
mentioned by Jinky before her death. Third, it is equally
unacceptable
that he did not report to the police that he saw the wooden chest of
the
deceased spouses open and the things in it scattered on the floor on
the
night of February 21, 1990 when he found both victims dying.
Instead,
he decided to withhold such vital informations notwithstanding the fact
that he knew the Chief of Police for a quite long time before the date
of the incident. It is equally incredible that Dionisio did not
deem
it necessary to report to the police what he knew about the money of
the
deceased victims and what he heard from the dying Jinky. Also,
the
trial court should have discredited the testimony of Dionisio that the
Chief of Police advised him to tell what he knows "if it will be
needed".
Said officer was not presented to attest to his advise, if it were
true.
Further, his testimony was not corroborated by either of his parents or
his sister. Not one of them was presented in court to
substantiate
his testimony. Considering his close relationship to the victims,
it would have been natural for him to report all that he knows to the
investigating
officer not only for a speedy solution of the case but also to ensure
that
his brother and sister-in-law would get justice for their deaths.
Thus, we find that the trial court erred in giving probative weight to
the testimony of Dionisio.cralaw:red
The Court and the trial
court as well cannot presume that there was robbery merely because
Dionisio
Luayon said so. It is essential to prove the intent to rob.[32]
This necessarily includes evidence to the effect that the appellant
carried
away the effects or personalty of the deceased.[33]
In the instant case, there is absence of positive proof that appellant
intended to rob the deceased or that he was the one who carried away
the
money belonging to the victims. The burden of proof rests on the
prosecution to establish that the money amounting to P10,000.00 as
alleged
in the Information was taken from the victims on February 21, 1990,
and,
that it was taken by appellant or at the very least, by his
companions.
In failing to discharge such burden of proof, the Court cannot in
conscience
rely on mere presumptions and conjectures to hold that the appellant
had
committed robbery on the night in question.chanrobles virtual law library
Thus, since the corpus
delicti of the crime of robbery has not been sufficiently established
beyond
reasonable doubt, appellant may not be held liable for robbery.
Absent
any evidence that the appellant indeed robbed the victim, the special
complex
crime of robbery with homicide cannot stand.[34]
The Court has no choice but to resolve the doubt in favor of the
appellant.cralaw:red
The trial court erred
as well in finding appellant guilty of homicide.cralaw:red
The testimony of Dominador
Luayon failed to prove that appellant committed or participated in
committing
the crime of robbery with homicide. After a careful study of the
records, Dominador fared no better than his brother Dionisio on the
witness
stand. He pointed to appellant as one of the three conspirators
who
killed his brother and sister-in-law because he allegedly saw him and
Ranalan
jump out of the window of his brother’s house moments after the
gunfires.
However, in his Affidavit,[35]
dated March 1, 1990, Dominador did not mention the names of the persons
he saw jump out of the window. The Affidavit reads:
Q-5:
Then what transpired next?
A -
That while I was at the immediate premises of the house of Wilfredo (my
brother) I got difficulty on where to pass to climb upstairs in the
house
considering that the door was closed. Then while I was still
downstairs
I heard burst of a gun four (4) times and after which, two male
factors/suspects
jumped from the house by passing at the window and ran away. At
this
juncture my brother in law named ALBIS MILLA arrived and immediately
climbed
upstairs in the house of Wilfredo and I followed. We also passed
at the window for the door was still closed. And while inside I
noticed
that my brother Wilfredo and his wife Jinky were hovering between life
and death and while maneuvering/initiating to transport the victims to
the doctor, the couple succumbed to death while still in their house.[36]
(Emphasis ours)
When he testified in
court, Dominador tried to explain this material omission in his
affidavit
by claiming that he wanted to tell the name of appellant but he was not
asked by the investigator.[37]
He said:
Q
And you also know the accused Fausto Obedo very well?
A
Yes, Sir, because they are friends.cralaw:red
Q
They are close friends, as a matter of fact, Fausto Obedo and your
deceased
brother, Wilfredo Luayon?chanrobles virtual law library
A
I do not know if they are close friends but I know that they are
friends.cralaw:red
Q
Once you mentioned only the name Fausto Obedo as one of those who
jumped
out of the window of the house of the deceased brother of yours, when
did
you decide to tell or to reveal the name of Fausto Obedo as one of
those
who jumped out of the window?
A
I would like to tell it before but I was not asked.cralaw:red
Q
You said you were not asked by the investigator who were the suspects
who
jumped out of the window, why did you state in your affidavit that
there
were two (2) malefactors who jumped out of the window if you were not
asked?
ATTY. ARAFOL:
Your Honor please, before
the witness answer, counsel is referring a question from the record in
the sworn statement. May we ask what paragraph?
ATTY. RAMA:
Paragraph 5 of the question
and answer thereto.cralaw:red
ATTY. ARAFOL:
Paragraph 5 speaks for
itself. It is a question what transpired next. There is no
identity, there is no question as to how many persons jumped out
COURT:
I will allow that question.cralaw:red
WITNESS:chanrobles virtual law library
A
I did not mention it because I was not asked about the name of that
person
who jumped out.[38]
(Underscoring ours)
This explanation is
too lame to be accepted. The question posed by the investigator
to
Dominador called for a narration of what Dominador knew about the
incident.
He voluntarily gave the information that he saw two persons jump out of
the window and yet, strangely enough, although he knew appellant and
Ranalan
very well,[39]
he did not mention their names. It casts serious doubt on the
credibility
of Dominador as a prosecution witness. The identity of the
malefactors
is too important a detail for anyone who allegedly witnessed the
incident
to overlook its omission in the very statement of the incident one is
giving.[40]
The omissions strongly and indubitably indicate Dominador’s actual
ignorance
of the real identity of the perpetrators of the crime.cralaw:red
The general rule has
always been that discrepancies between the statement of the affiant in
his affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand do not
necessarily
discredit him since ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete.[41]
Affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open Court
declarations
because they are oftentimes executed when an affiant’s mental faculties
are not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of
narrating
in full what actually transpired and are sometimes prepared with
partial
suggestions from the administering officer.[42]
The exception to the rule is where the omission in the affidavit refers
to a very important detail of the incident such that the affiant would
not have failed to mention it, and which omission could affect the
affiant’s
credibility.[43]
In the instant case,
Dominador admitted on the witness stand that when he gave his sworn
statement,
the person of appellant was still very fresh in his mind, and yet, in
the
same breadth, he testified that he was not able to tell the name of the
appellant except for his built, size and standing, thus:
ATTY. RAMA:
Q
Now, before you signed Exhibit "1"and "1-a", did somebody read it for
you?
A
Yes, Sir.cralaw:red
Q
Who read it for you?
A
The policeman.chanrobles virtual law library
Q
Was it read to you in English or in the Visayan dialect?
A
It was read in English and then he translated it into the Visayan
dialect.cralaw:red
Q
You understood the same?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
And they are all true, what is contained in this exhibit?
A
Yes, Sir.cralaw:red
Q
You signed it after the same was translated to you in Visayan dialect,
correct?
A
Yes, Sir.cralaw:red
Q
And is it not true that Judge Agayan also translated this document
Exhibits
"1" and "1-a" to you which you signed?
A
Yes, Sir.cralaw:red
Q
Now, you signed this affidavit one week after the death of your brother
Wilfredo Luayon. You still remember when you signed this Exhibits
"1" and "1-a", it was still fresh in your mind the two (2) persons who
allegedly jumped out of the window of the house of your deceased
brother?
A
Yes, Sir.cralaw:red
Q
When you executed this Exhibit "1’ and "1-a" the person of Fausto Obedo
was still very fresh in your mind?
A
Yes, Sir.chanrobles virtual law library
Q
And you stated in your affidavit the identity and the name of the
person
who jumped out of the window of the house of your deceased brother,
Wilfredo
Luayon?
A
I was not able to tell the name of Fausto Obedo but his built, his
size,
and his standing.cralaw:red
Q
Why did you not mention the name of Fausto Obedo and Arnold Ranalan as
the two persons who jumped out of the window of the house of brother,
Wilfredo
Luayon in Exhibit "1" and "1-a"?
ATTY. ARAFOL:
In the affidavit, Your
Honor, the name of Arnold Ranalan was mentioned.cralaw:red
ATTY. RAMA:
We will read this affidavit,
Your Honor.cralaw:red
It is question No. 5
and the answer thereto which we request the Court Interpreter to read
this
for the record, Your Honor.chanrobles virtual law library
COURT:
Alright.cralaw:red
MRS. MORTA:
(Reading Question No.
5 and answer thereto of the affidavit of the witness)
Q
Then what transpired next?
A
That while I was at the immediate premises of the house of Wilfredo (my
brother) I got difficulty on where to pass to climb upstair in the
house
considering that the door was close. Then while I was still
downstairs
I heard burst of a gun in four times (4) and after which, two male
factors/suspects
jumped from the house by passing at the window and ran away. At
this
juncture my brother in law named Albis Milla arrived and immediately
climbed
upstairs in the house of Wilfredo and I followed. We also passed
at the window for the door was still close. And while inside I
noticed
that my brother Wilfredo and his wife Jinky were hovering between life
and death and while maneuvering/initiating to transport the victims to
the doctor, the couple succumb to death while still in the house.cralaw:red
ATTY. RAMA:
Q
Having admitted that Exhibit "1" and "1-a" was read to you in English
and
translated to you in Visayan dialect and having admitted that you
understood
the same, in the question and answer that was read to you, you have
mentioned
the name of Fausto Obedo and Arnold Ranalan as the person who jumped
out
of the window of the house of your brother?
ATTY. RAMA:
The witness cannot answer,
Your Honor. We will wait for his answer.[44]chanrobles virtual law library
Moreover, it is unbelievable
that Dionisio did not recognize the two men he met. The
identities
of the perpetrators of the crime are so material to the evidence of the
prosecution that the failure of the witnesses to identify and name the
culprits during the taking of their sworn statements cannot be taken
merely
as insignificant.cralaw:red
Prosecution witnesses
Dominador as well as Dionisio Luayon failed to give a credible and
consistent
account of the identities of the persons responsible for the killing of
spouses Wilfredo and Jinky Luayon as well as of the alleged robbery.cralaw:red
We are thus left with
no clear picture of the events that transpired on February 21, 1990 and
of the identity of the perpetrators.cralaw:red
The circumstantial evidence
relied upon by the trial court in convicting the appellant do not
suffice
to warrant a finding of guilt. The fact that at around 7
o’clock
in the evening of February 21, 1990, Jesus Saraga accompanied
appellant,
Ranalan and Villamor to Wilfredo’s house, and while on their way to the
house of Wilfredo, he saw Ranalan get hold of a gun tucked in the
latter’s
waist[45]
does not prove that robbery and killing took place. The crime was
committed at around 7:30 o’clock in the evening. The prosecution
failed to show what transpired during the 30-minute span of time.
Further, that Abundio Mahinay saw appellant, Ranalan and Villamor at
around
10 o’clock in the evening of February 21, 1990 when Ranalan borrowed a
shirt from him because he was then wearing a bloodstained shirt[46]
does not provide much support. What he witnessed transpired two
hours
and a half after the incident. The link between the bloodstained
shirt of Ranalan and the participation of appellant in the killing was
not sufficiently established.cralaw:red
For the foregoing reasons,
although denial and alibi are generally held to be weak and unavailing,
these defenses gain commensurate strength when the credibility of the
prosecution
witnesses is wanting and questionable and when the evidence for the
prosecution
is frail and effete.[47]
The prosecution cannot rely on the weakness of the evidence for the
defense
but must depend on the strength of its own evidence to prove the guilt
of the accused.[48]
It cannot be overemphasized
that the constitutional presumption of innocence demands not only that
the prosecution prove that a crime has been committed but, more
importantly,
the identity of the person or persons who committed the crime.[49]
In the case at bar, the prosecution evidence failed to meet the quantum
of proof beyond reasonable doubt necessary for conviction in a criminal
case to overcome the presumption of innocence accorded by the
Constitution
to an accused.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the appealed
decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and appellant is ACQUITTED on the
ground
of reasonable doubt. The Director of the National Bilibid
Prisons,
Muntinlupa, Metro Manila is directed to forthwith cause the immediate
release
of appellant, unless the latter is detained for some other lawful
cause,
and to inform the Court accordingly within ten (10) days from notice of
the action taken by him.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Bellosillo, J., (Chairman),
Quisumbing, and Callejo, Sr., JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Bernardo V. Saludares.
[2]
Rollo, p. 5; Records, p. 1.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
TSN (Dominador Luayon), pp. 23-25, January 15, 1991.
[4]
TSN (Dionisio Luayon), pp. 18-20, September 4, 1991.
[5]
TSN (Jesus Saraga), pp. 43-61, January 16, 1991.
[6]
Also referred to as "Teting" in the Records.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Also referred to as "Ompong" and "Opong" in the Records.
[8]
TSN (Dominador Luayon), pp. 10-22, 48-50, January 15, 1991.
[9]
Id., pp. 34-35; Exhibits "1" and "1-A". TSN (Dionisio Luayon),
pp.
10-21, 45-46, September 4, 1991.
[10]
Exhs. "C" and "D"; Records, pp. 198, 200.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
TSN (Abundio Mahinay), pp. 85-87, 96, January 16, 1991.
[12]
Exh. "A"; Records, pp. 194-197. chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
TSN (Fausto Obedo), pp. 16-17, November 15, 1993.
[14]
TSN (Jose Rana), pp. 7-8, July 20, 1992.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
TSN (Vicente Gutierrez), pp. 8-9, May 24, 1993.
[16]
Decision, pp. 25-26; Rollo, pp. 39-40; Records, pp. 334-335.
[17]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 3; Rollo, p. 177.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
People vs. Campos, 361 SCRA 339 (2001).chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
People vs. Contega, 332 SCRA 730 (2000), citing People vs. Pacala, 58
SCRA
370 (1974).
[20]
Art. 293, The Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
E.g., People vs. Arellano, 366 SCRA 204, 215 (2001); People vs.
Sabadao,
344 SCRA 432, 438 (2000); People vs. Monterey, 261 SCRA 357, 367 (1996).
[22]
People vs. Mantung, 310 SCRA 819, 833 (1999).
[23]
Id., citing People vs. Roluna, 231 SCRA 446 (1994).
[24]
TSN (Dionisio Luayon), pp. 19-22, September 4, 1991.
[25]
Id., pp. 30-34.chanrobles virtual law library
[26]
See People vs. Campos, 361 SCRA 339 (2001).
[27]
See People vs. Manobo, 18 SCRA 30, 41 (1966); People vs. Bulan, 108
Phil.
932 (1960).
[28]
People vs. Dedace, 328 SCRA 679, 690 (2000).
[29]
People vs. Baldevieso, 314 SCRA 803, 813-814 (1999).
[30]
Id.chanrobles virtual law library
[31]
TSN (Dionisio Luayon), pp. 15-17, 23-26, September 4, 1991.chanrobles virtual law library
[32]
People vs. Moro Ambahang, 108 Phil. 325, 333 (1960).chanrobles virtual law library
[33]
People vs. Parel, 261 SCRA 720, 734 (1996).chanrobles virtual law library
[34]
People vs. Calabroso, 340 SCRA 332 (2000), citing People vs. Bajar, 281
SCRA 262 (1997) and United States vs. Lahoylahoy, 38 Phil 330 (1918).
[35]
Exh. 1; Records, pp. 7-8.chanrobles virtual law library
[36]
Id., p. 7.chanrobles virtual law library
[37]
TSN (Dominador Luayon), p. 55, January 15, 1991.
[38]
Id., pp. 54-57.chanrobles virtual law library
[39]
Id., pp. 44 and 54.chanrobles virtual law library
[40]
Angcaco vs. People, G.R. No. 146664, February 28, 2002.chanrobles virtual law library
[41]
People vs. Ponferada, 220 SCRA 46, 53-54 (1993).chanrobles virtual law library
[42]
People vs. Ortiz, 266 SCRA 641, 650 (1997), citing People vs. Sapurco,
315 Phil. 561, 571 (1995) and People vs. Manuel, 236 SCRA 545 (1994).
[43]
People vs. Español, 256 SCRA 137, 145 (1996); People vs.
Ponferada,
220 SCRA 46, 54 (1993).
[44]
TSN (Dominador Luayon), pp. 32-35, January 15, 1991chanrobles virtual law library
[45]
TSN (Jesus Saraga), p. 48, January 16, 1991.
[46]
TSN (Abundio Mahinay), p. 85, January 16, 1991.
[47]
People vs. Padilla, G.R No. 145460, July 3, 2002.
[48]
Id.chanrobles virtual law library
[49]
Angcaco vs. People, G.R. No. 146664, February 28, 2002. |