THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
146271
May 29, 2003
-versus-
MARCIANO TINAMPAY,
Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
PUNO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Along with the festive
close of the School Year on March 21, 1996 came the gruesome end of
Eulogio
Entac’s life. For his murder, an Information was filed against
the
accused Tinampay on May 17, 1996, viz:
"That on or
about 7:00 o’clock in the evening of March 21, 1996, at Sitio Calangag,
Bonawon, Siaton, Negros Oriental, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill,
with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously ATTACK, ASSAULT, and HACK one Eulogio Entac
with the use of a long bolo, with which said accused was armed at that
time, hitting the head of said Eulogio Entac, who died instantaneously
as a result thereof, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the
said
victim."[1]
The evidence of the
prosecution
consists mainly of the testimony of eyewitness Porferio Tindoc, a
farmer
and resident of Sitio Calangag. At about 1:00 p.m. on March 21,
1996,
Porferio and his twenty-seven-year old son Gregorio arrived in a school
in Calangag where a closing program would be held. Porferio’s
daughter,
thirteen-year old Maricel, had a part in the program. He brought
with him a rooster. Since the program would start at 3:00 p.m.,
he
and Gregorio proceeded to the cockpit about fifty meters away, but he
(the
accused) could not pair his rooster for a cock fight. So, they
went
back to the school at past 5:00 p.m. At about 7:00 p.m., he saw
the
accused Tinampay and Entac walking together near the school towards a
gambling
place. They had their arms on each other’s shoulder.
Tinampay
held a two-and-a-half foot bolo with his right hand. Porferio was
about five meters behind them. Tinampay looked back and saw him,
then released his hold on Entac and held Porferio instead. When
Tinampay
and Porferio reached the front of the cockpit area, the former urged
the
latter to go farther with him. Porferio refused as it was
dark.
He was afraid that Tinampay would kill him as he knew his
character.
In 1996, he stabbed Porferio’s brother-in-law, Payling Jamosmos, while
they were gambling and a case was filed in connection with the
incident.
Porferio told Tinampay that he preferred to stay in the gambling area
because
he wanted to gamble with his five pesos and bring home something for
his
family. Tinampay’s hold on him tightened, so Porferio strove and
succeeded to free himself from his hold. About an arm’s length
from
Porferio, Entac was squatting in a corner, looking down on the lomboy
leaf
he was rolling into a cigarette. When Porferio broke free from
Tinampay’s
hold, the latter took three steps forward and at a distance of one
meter
from Entac hacked the latter at the back of his neck with his
bolo.
He was almost beheaded and died instantly. Porferio saw the
incident
clearly as the place was illuminated by a petromax lamp. Tinampay
then fled and stumbled because the place was hilly while Porferio
helped
bring the body of the victim to his residence, arriving there at about
8:00 p.m. He then went back to the school and fetched his
daughter
without finishing the program.[2]chanrobles virtual law library
The victim’s widow,
Arquila Entac, testified that she knows Tinampay because he is a
relative
of her husband. She had been married to Eulogio since 1973 and
they
had eight children. The eldest of the brood was twenty-three
years
old while the youngest was four years old. At about 11:00 p.m. on
March 21, 1996, while home, she was informed by her cousin Pino Magsayo
that her husband was coming home dead and that his assailant was the
accused.
The next day, she was also informed by her uncle, Porferio Tindoc, and
the latter assured her that he would testify as he witnessed the
killing.
A policeman named Franco together with Barangay Captain Steven Orfanel
also went to the Entac residence. They inquired if Arquila was
Eulogio’s
wife, and asked her Eulogio’s age, educational attainment and the
wounds
he sustained. Policeman Franco went upstairs where Eulogio’s
remains
lay and checked the wounds. When the body was about to be brought
to the chapel, it was placed in a makeshift coffin made by the Entacs’
neighbors. Arquila incurred expenses for the wake as she
butchered
two goats and served corn. On March 23, 1996, Eulogio was
buried.
He did not have a tomb and was given a poor man’s burial at the
cemetery.
Arquila could not accept what happened to her husband as he was a good
man and a good father.[3]
Dr. Mitylene Besario
Tan took the witness stand. She had been the Municipal Health
Officer
of Siaton, Negros Oriental for nine years. The defense admitted
her
qualification as an expert witness. At about 8:00 in the morning
on March 22, 1996, she was on duty at the Municipal Health Center of
Siaton.
A policeman named Franco informed her that on the night of March 21,
1996,
Entac was hacked to death at Sitio Calangag. Since it was a
far-flung
sitio and she was doing monthly immunizations that day, she just gave
the
policeman authority to go to the sitio to confirm Entac’s death.
Policeman Franco did as told and upon returning, reported to Tan that
Entac
was beheaded and the corpse was already in rigor mortis.[4]
Tan then made a certification dated March 22, 1996 stating that Entac
was
forty-two years old, a resident of Calangag, Bonawon, Siaton, Negros
Oriental
and that he was beheaded.[5]
Three days later, she signed a Certificate of Death.[6]
SPO2 Franco Rubio corroborated
the prosecution’s story. At the time of his testimony, he had
been
in the service for seventeen years. On March 22, 1996, he was on
duty. Pursuant to a report entered in their station’s police
blotter,
Chief of Police Abelardo Osente ordered Rubio to investigate a killing
in Sitio Calangag and to fetch a doctor to conduct an examination on
the
victim’s body. Rubio, along with two other policemen, went to Dr.
Mitylene Tan and invited her to go with them to examine Eulogio Entac’s
body. Dr. Tan declined as she had another appointment.
Rubio
then proceeded to the crime scene, but did not find the body
there.
He went to the Entac residence, about a kilometer away. He
conducted
an investigation and talked to the victim’s wife and to Porferio Tindoc
who was very near the Entac abode. Tindoc disclosed that the
assailant
was the accused. After his investigation, Franco went back to Dr.
Tan and informed her that Entac was beheaded. He then proceeded
to
the Tinampay residence and invited the accused for investigation.
Tinampay obliged and so they headed for the Siaton Police Station where
he was turned over to SPO2 Regulo Guitalan for investigation.[7]
PO3 Clyde Quimat testified
that he was on duty as an investigator and radio operator on March 22,
1996. As investigator, he was in charge of recording complaints
and
activities at the police station. He made Entry No. 1454 on page
738 of the police blotter which stated that policemen of the station
led
by SPO2 Rubio and PO2 Ricardo Macayan and PO2 Juanito Rado immediately
proceeded to the place where the accused hacked Eulogio Entac the
previous
day or on March 21, 1996. Later, at about 3:00 p.m., the team
returned
to the station with Tinampay. SPO2 Rigulo Guitalan investigated
Tinampay.
Quimat made another entry in the police blotter stating that Rubio’s
team
gathered from their investigation that the suspect was the accused and
he waylaid the victim and hacked him at the back portion of his neck
while
the victim was on his way home from a dancing session.[8]
Subsequently, on March 25, 1996, police from the station led by Quimat
arrested Tinampay.[9]chanrobles virtual law library
The accused had a different
story to tell. He identifies a certain Junior Turtal as the
culprit.
At about 7:00 p.m. on March 21, 1996, Tinampay was at the dance hall
near
the school in Sitio Calangag. A dance was being held at the close
of the school year. He was a bit drunk but could recognize
people.
When he went out, he saw Porferio Tindoc, Eulogio Entac, and Dita Duran
and some other unfamiliar people playing cards. Junior Turtal,
Noe
Janga, and Berber Anito were also there but they did not take part in
the
game. Entac was sitting on a stone, looking down, when Turtal
hacked
him once with a two-foot bolo he held with his right hand. He was
hit at the back of the neck, his head was almost severed, and he fell
on
his back. He died instantly. Tinampay was about thirteen
meters
away from Turtal and a petromax lamp on the game table lighted the
area.
After the hacking, Turtal, along with Janga and Anito, fled.
Although
Tinampay already knew Turtal and his companions, he nevertheless ran
after
them to confirm their identities so that if called to testify, he would
be able to identify them. But he did not pursue them in the dark
as he was afraid he might also be hacked. Tinampay claims that
the
prosecution’s eyewitness, Porferio Tindoc, did not see the hacking as
he
was looking down at the card game. When he (Tindoc) looked at
Entac,
the latter was already lying on the ground. He suggests that
Tindoc
testified against him because although they are friends, Tindoc has a
grudge
against him. He and Tindoc’s brother-in-law, Payling Jamosmos,
had
a fight and the latter allegedly stabbed him, but he was able to ward
it
off and stab Jamosmos in the stomach. A case was not filed in
relation
to this incident but Tindoc maintained a grudge against him.
Subsequently,
the police invited Tinampay for investigation on the hacking of Entac,
but he refused and insisted on his innocence, pointing instead to
Turtal,
Anito and Janga as the perpetrators. Eventually, however, he
obliged
and went with the police to the station. Later, when he was
investigated
by the Municipal Trial Court judge at Siaton, he did not file any
counter-affidavit.
Tinampay did not surrender, but was arrested for the hacking of Entac.[10]chanrobles virtual law library
The defense also presented
Cresencio Quibo-Quibo. He was selling food inside the school
premises
on March 21, 1996 from 10:00 in the morning until about 6:00 in the
evening.
Tinampay went to his store at around 1:00 p.m. and left his bolo
there.
Quibo-Quibo presumed that he did so upon order of a tanod named Alfredo
Tayko.[11]
Alfredo Tayko corroborated
Quibo-Quibo’s testimony. He had been a barangay tanod of Siaton
from
1992 up to the time he testified. On March 21, 1996, he was on
duty
at Sitio Calangag upon instruction of Barangay Captain Zaldy
Villacampa.
The latter was requested by a teacher to provide a tanod for the
Calangag
Elementary School’s closing program. He announced to the visitors
and parents in the school that all weapons should be deposited with him
and retrieved before going home. The residents of the area were
mostly
farmers and normally brought along bolos.[12]
The trial court upheld
the version of the prosecution and rendered a decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads, viz:
"WHEREFORE,
accused MARCIANO TINAMPAY is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt
of the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery, and the Court hereby
imposes
upon him the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. Accused is likewise
directed
to indemnify the heirs of victim Eulogio Entac the amount of FIFTY
THOUSAND
PESOS (P50,000.00). The accused is likewise hereby adjudged to
pay
moral damages in the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) and
another
amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) for exemplary damages."[13]chanrobles virtual law library
Hence, this appeal with
the following assignment of errors, viz: "I.
THE LOWER COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF
THE
CRIME CHARGED.
II.
THE LOWER COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE AND WEIGHT TO THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S
DEFENSE.
III.
ASSUMING SANS
ADMITTING
THAT IT WAS ACCUSED-APPELLANT WHO KILLED THE VICTIM, THE LOWER COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN APPRECIATING AGAINST HIM THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
TREACHERY.
IV.
THE LOWER COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING IN FAVOR OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT THE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER."[14]
The appeal is devoid
of merit.cralaw:red
Time and again, we have
ruled that the findings of a trial court on the credibility of
witnesses
deserve great weight as the trial judge has a clear advantage over the
appellate magistrate in appreciating testimonial evidence. The
trial
judge is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witness
as he had the unique opportunity to observe the witness firsthand and
note
his demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination.
Absent
any showing that the trial court's calibration of credibility was
flawed,
we are bound by its assessment.[15]
The trial court declared, viz:
"The Court
finds the categorical, straightforward and credible assertion of
prosecution’s
eyewitness Porferio Tindoc that it was accused Marciano Tinampay who
suddenly
hacked the unwary victim to his untimely death, worthy of belief.
Although while on the witness stand Porferio made some minor
inconsistencies
on the time frame and some collateral matters, these appear mainly due
to his lack of education and failure to fully comprehend the
questions.
On the material points, Porferio remained consistent and credible."[16]chanrobles virtual law library
Considering the trial
court’s
assessment of Tindoc’s credibility, it is of no moment that he was the
lone eyewitness presented by the prosecution as the running case law is
that "the testimony of a lone eyewitness, if found positive and
credible
by the trial court, is sufficient to support a conviction especially
when
the testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and had been
delivered
spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner."[17]
We find no reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment of Tindoc’s
testimony.
On the other hand, the
accused’s denial of responsibility for the crime and his version of the
hacking incident deserve scant consideration. Well-settled is the
rule that positive identification of the accused will prevail over the
defense of denial.[18]
Portions of his testimony confirm his incredulity. As pointed out
by the trial court, it is incredulous that although Tinampay already
knew
Turtal, Anito and Janga before the hacking and he saw Turtal hack
Entac,
he still chased them after the hacking incident supposedly to ascertain
their identities. Likewise, during the investigation of the
crime,
the accused did not submit a counter-affidavit despite the fact that he
was allegedly not responsible for the hacking and he knew the real
culprit.[19]
The accused’s hacking
of Entac was treacherous. There is treachery when the offender
commits
any of the crimes against persons, deliberately employing means,
methods
or forms of execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
ensure
its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which
the
victim might make.[20]
"The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the
aggressor
on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to
defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the
aggressor,
and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim."[21]
There is no doubt that the attack on Entac was sudden and that the
means
employed ensured that he did not have an opportunity to defend
himself.
His head was bent down, looking at the lomboy leaf he was
rolling.
There was no forewarning of the impending attack as he and the accused
did not have a prior altercation. After Entac was hacked, he
simply
fell to the ground and died instantly, his head almost severed.
The
crime was not, however, attended by the aggravating circumstance of
evident
premeditation. There is evident premeditation when the following
facts are proved: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the
crime;
(2) an overt act showing that the accused clung to his determination to
commit the crime; and (3) the lapse of a sufficient period of time
between
the decision and the execution of the crime, to allow the accused to
reflect
upon the consequences of his act.[22]
The records do not show evidence of these facts.cralaw:red
Voluntary surrender
cannot be appreciated in favor of the accused. This mitigating
circumstance
requires that (1) the offender was not actually arrested; (2) he
surrendered
himself to a person in authority or to an agent of that person; and (3)
his surrender was voluntary.[23]
For the surrender to be voluntary, it should be spontaneous and
indicative
of the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the
authorities,
either because (1) he acknowledges his guilt or (2) he wishes to save
the
government the trouble and expense required by his search and capture.[24]
It is clear from the records, however, that the accused did not
surrender
to the police and was instead arrested after he was invited to the
police
station for investigation. We quote the relevant portion of the
accused’s
testimony, viz:chanrobles virtual law library
"Q: According
to police officer Clyde Quimat, on March 22 you were invited for
investigation.
When the police officers invited you for investigation, did you try to
resist the invitation?
A: I refused the
invitation of the police sir saying I was not the one who did the
hacking.cralaw:red
Q: But you eventually
went with them to the police station?
A: Because they
brought me, sir, so I accompanied them to the police station. I
was
just even wearing shorts. I was not able to change my clothes.cralaw:red
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q: For clarification,
were you arrested by the police authorities or you went with them of
(sic)
your own volition?
A: They went to
me, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Q: Are you suggesting
to the Court that you were arrested by the police authorities?
A: I was arrested
without having committed the crime, Your Honor.cralaw:red
x
x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtual law library
Q: Is it not a
fact that you were actually arrested on March 25, 1996 when there was
already
a warrant issued for your arrest by the Municipal Court of Siaton?
A: I was not shown
a warrant, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: But the fact
is you were taken or the police officers of Siaton went to your
residence
twice on March 22 and March 25, 1996?
A: Only on the
22nd, ma’am. They only went on the 22nd.cralaw:red
Q: Now, while
you were arrested, you knew that a case was already filed against you
by
reason of this incident?
A: I did not know
about that, ma’am.cralaw:red
COURT:
Q: For clarification,
when were you arrested by the police authorities of Siaton?
A: On March 22,
Your Honor.cralaw:red
Q: Are you sure
of that date?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
On the 22nd I was apprehended, but I kept denying.chanrobles virtual law library
Q: And it was
the policemen of Siaton that effected the arrest?
A: Yes, Your Honor,
Siaton policemen."[25]
PO3 Clyde Quimat also
testified that the accused was arrested, viz:
"Q: Can you please
read for the records the content of the entry which you made?
A: (Witness reading
the entry). ‘Arrested person with warrant of arrest for
Murder.
One Marciano Tinampay y Lavestre, 52, married, farmer, resident of
Sitio
Balogo, Barangay Bonawon, Siaton, Negros Oriental and who was charged
with
murder before the Municipal Trial Court of Siaton, Negros Oriental in
Criminal
Case No. 5523 with no bail recommended, was arrested by the elements of
this station led by PO3 Clyde Quimat on or about 2:40 p.m. today, 25
March
1996. Signed PO3 Clyde Quimat.’
Q: As stated in
this entry, you were part of the team which arrested the accused,
Marciano
Tinampay. Where was the accused arrested?
A: On that day,
we arrested Marciano Tinampay based on the warrant of arrest issued by
Judge Fe Bustamante, at Barangay 3, more or less, half (1/2) kilometer
from the station.cralaw:red
Q: Can you please
tell us, if you know, how it happened to be that he was a kilometer
away
from the station when on March 22, he was brought to the police station
by SPO3 Guitalan?chanrobles virtual law library
A: After I handed
the Warrant of Arrest of Marciano Tinampay, I informed our chief
investigator
SPO2 Guitalan that this Marciano Tinampay is living near the station of
Barangay 3 based on the information I received from my civilian agent.cralaw:red
Q: Prior to March
25, 1996, and after you saw Marciano Tinampay being entrusted by Franco
Rubia (sic) to Chief Police Officer Guitalan, how many times have you
seen
him thereafter?
A: Aside from
the 22nd March 1996, I still saw him on the 24th or March 26 in the
station.cralaw:red
Q: Where was he
placed in the station?
A: Still living
outside.chanrobles virtual law library
Q: In effect,
you are saying that there was no physical restraint of this person?chanrobles virtual law library
A: None, ma’am."[26]
Finally, we affirm the
trial court’s award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The award
of
moral damages is increased from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00 and of
exemplary
damages from P20,000.00 to P25,000.00 in line with existing
jurisprudence.[27]
We likewise award the heirs of the victim P25,000.00 as temperate
damages
in view of the insufficiency of evidence of the expenses incurred by
the
victim’s heirs for the victim’s wake and burial.[28]
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the
impugned decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the accused
Tinampay
is hereby adjudged to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of
P50,000.00
as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as
exemplary
damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages. Costs against the
accused-appellant.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Panganiban and
Carpio-Morales,
JJ., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez and
Corona, JJ., on leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Original Records, p. 1.
[2]
TSN, Porferio Tindoc, July 10, 1997, pp. 2-12; July 15, 1997, pp. 15-47.
[3]
TSN, Arquila Entac, July 17, 1997, pp. 2-20.
[4]
TSN, Mitylene B. Tan, July 15, 1997, pp. 2-15.
[5]
Exhibit A, Original Records, p. 60.
[6]
Exhibit B, Original Records, p. 7.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
TSN, SPO2 Franco Rubio, July 29, 1997, pp. 3-28.
[8]
Exhibit E, Original Records, p. 61-C.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
TSN, PO3 Clyde Quimat, July 29, 1997, pp. 29-34; July 30, 1997, pp.
2-10.
[10]
TSN, Marciano Tinampay, October 16, 1997, pp. 2-9; October 17, 1997,
pp.
2-22.
[11]
TSN, Cresencio Quibo-Quibo, February 3, 2000, pp. 2-7.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
TSN, Alfredo Tayko, February 3, 2000, pp. 7-9.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Original Records, p. 190.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
Rollo, pp. 56-57.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
People v. Pardua, et al., 360 SCRA 41 (2001), citing People v.
Mosqueda,
313 SCRA 694 (1999).
[16]
Rollo, pp. 29-30; Decision, pp. 6-7.
[17]
People v. Tulop, 289 SCRA 316 (1998).chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
People v. Mendoza, 348 SCRA 318 (2000), citing People v. Gallego, 338
SCRA
21 (2000).
[19]
Rollo, pp. 30-31; Decision, pp. 7-8.chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
People v. Perreras, et al., 362 SCRA 202 (2001), citing People v.
Amazan,
349 SCRA 218 (2001); People v. Bato, 348 SCRA 253 (2000).
[21]
People v. Muerong, 360 SCRA 566 (2001), citing People v. Magno, 322
SCRA
494 (2000).chanrobles virtual law library
[22]
People v. Virtucio, Jr., 326 SCRA 198 (2000), citing People v. Armando
Sarabia, 317 SCRA 684 (1999).
[23]
People v. Vital, 341 SCRA 375 (2000).chanrobles virtual law library
[24]
People v. Abella, et al., 339 SCRA 129 (2000).
[25]
TSN, Marciano Tinampay, October 17, 1997, pp. 2 and 22.
[26]
TSN, Clyde Quimat, July 30, 1997, pp. 7-8.chanrobles virtual law library
[27]
People v. Rubiso, G.R. No. 128871, March 18, 2003, citing People v.
Catubig,
363 SCRA 621 (2001) and People v. Cueto, G.R. No. 147764, January 16,
2003.chanrobles virtual law library
[28]
People v. Alfon, G.R. No. 126028, March 14, 2003, citing People v.
Ronas,
350 SCRA 663 (2001). See also People v. Alcodia, G.R. No. 134121,
March 6, 2003, citing People v. Catubig, supra. |