SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 75880 September 27, 1988

BERNARDO M. CORDIAL, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (now Court of Appeals), Respondents.

FERNAN, C.J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals ¹ affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court, BRANCH XXV at Naga City ² finding herein petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and imposing on him the indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day prison mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The appellate court modified the lower court's decision by increasing the indemnity payable to the victim's heirs to P30,000.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The prosecution version of the crime on which the courts below based their decisions are as follows: At around 10:00 o'clock in the morning of August 23, 1981, C2C Emmanuel Romero of the 244th Company of the Philippines Constabulary (PC) and Nicanor Lanuza, a member of the Constabulary Home Defense Force (CHDF), were riding on a passenger jeep from the PC headquarters at Concepcion Grande, Naga City to the patrol base at Antipolo, Minalabac Camarines Sur. Romero and Lanuza, who were both carrying armalite rifles were then seated opposite each other at the rear of the jeep nearest its running board with Romero seated on the left side. ³ chanrobles virtual law library

The jeep, which contained around ten passengers stopped near the house of the barangay captain at Grejalvo (Grijalvo), San Fernando, Camarines Sur, to unload some passengers. From where he was seated, Lanuza saw petitioner Bernardo M. Cordial with nine other persons. ⁴ Then, Cordial, armed with an "improvised knife" ⁵ entered the jeep and stabbed Romero on the left side of the body. Lanuza fired his armalite rifle but the persons with Cordial got his and Romero's armalite rifles and stabbed him seventeen times. Lanuza failed to see what happened later to Romero as he became unconscious. ⁶chanrobles virtual law library

Romero died on the spot. The autopsy conducted immediately thereafter by the municipal health officer of San Fernando, Camarines Sur, revealed that Romero, who was then 22 years old, sustained a bullet wound described as "swinging" which penetrated his left arm, another 0.8 centimeter contused wound after a bullet entered his left nipple and exited at the scapular region, still another lacerated wound 2 inches in diameter caused by another bullet on the left side of the back at the mid-scapular region, and a stabbed wound on the right hypochondriac region. Romero also had abrasions on both legs. His death was attributed to "irreversible shock secondary to severe external and internal hemorrhage due to multiple gunshot wounds. ⁷ chanrobles virtual law library

Eight months later or on April 26, 1982, Cordial was arrested by the police near the Tabuco bridge in Naga City while he was waiting for a ride to Beberon, San Fernando ⁸From the city jail, he was brought to the PC headquarters allegedly by
Lanuza. ⁹The following day, he was investigated by patrolman Eduardo Ginoo of the Investigation Section, 244th Constabulary Company/Police District III at Naga City. The investigation was conducted in the Bicol dialect but Cordial refused to sign his typewritten statement. ¹⁰ In his uncorroborated testimony Cordial stated that the answers to the questions propounded in the investigation "did not come from (him) but from Lanuza." ¹¹ chanrobles virtual law library

The police filed a complaint for murder against Cordial and three John Does in the municipal circuit court of San Fernando-Pamplona, Camarines Sur. After the preliminary investigation, the second stage of which was waived by the accused, the provincial fiscal filed an information for murder against Cordial in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On arraignment, Cordial pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. He interposed alibi as his defense. In his testimony, Cordial stated that he could not remember where he was on August 23, 1981 "because it was already a long time ago; ¹²that from June to November, 1981 he was employed as a truck laborer by Pepito Morano who owned a tobacco factory at the Naga City Subdivision and the Hotel Moraville at Dinaga Naga City; that his duty was to load gravel, sand and boulders in Ligao or Pawili for delivery to the construction site of Morano that he worked from five to seven days a week because there were times when the truck would be out of order and he would help in its repair, and that he worked from seven in the morning to seven in the evening even on Sundays when they disposed of tobacco waste from the Naga City Subdivision to Balatas Naga City. ¹³ chanrobles virtual law library

Cordial swore that Lanuza testified in court that he was one of those who killed Romero and assaulted Lanuza because the latter told lies and "disreputed" persons like himself. ¹⁴ He came to know Lanuza because he used to go to San Fernando to help his parents prepare their land for planting. He could not remember if he went to San Fernando from June to November because "it was already so long a time" and his work and Romero were dead, they got their guns and armalite magazines and escaped towards Beberon where they went their separate ways to hide with Morano was continuous. ¹⁵ chanrobles virtual law library

The defense presented two other witnesses. Femando Bicaldo, Jr. testified that he was a co-laborer of Cordial in the gravel and sand business of Morano for five months from June, 1981; that he and Cordial would work from seven in the morning to seven in the evening delivering gravel and sand from Pawili or Ligao to Moraville, and that they would work from five to six days a week.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Catalino Noora, the barangay captain of Beberon, testified that he had known Cordial since 1978; that Cordial was a resident of Naga City and he would go to Beberon only during the planting season to help his parents; that he knew Lanuza to be a CHDF member who would come to Beberon if he had someone to arrest; that Lanuza picked up Dominador Penaflor, one Bandola and Mamerto Peflaflor; that Lanuza brought these three persons to the PC Detachment at the boundary of Lupi, San Fernando and Antipolo and to the PC detachment in Tanmo and later they were brought back to Lupi; that when the three were back in Lupi, he heard gunshots and "there were spray of bullets" which he believed to have come from an armalite or machinegun because they were successive; and that after he heard the gunshots, the three were loaded in a jeep and brought to the municipal hall already dead.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Finding that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not proved, the lower court ruled that the crime committed was homicide and not murder as charged. Mitigating or aggravating circumstances being absent, the court imposed the aforementioned penalty. The sum of P12,000 it had imposed on the accused "for the fact of death" and the amount of P10,000 as reimbursement for the interment expenses were later increased by the appellate court to the total amount of P30,000.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

His motion for reconsideration having been denied, Cordial appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court. On April 2, 1986, the later court affirmed the lower court's decision.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The instant petition for review on certiorari is centered on petitioner's challenge to the credibility of the prosecution's sole eyewitnesses, Nicanor Lanuza, and his testimony.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In assailing the credibility of Lanuza as a witness, Cordial relies on the testimony of Catalino Noora specifically the following:

Q. Do you know whether Nicanor Lanuza as a member of the CHDF came to Beberon on any occasion? chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. On what occasion?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Lanuza goes to Beberon if he has a person to be a tested.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. Do you know who (were) these persons arrested by Nicanor Lanuza?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Who are they? chanrobles virtual law library

A. Dominador Penaflor and one Bandola and Mamerto Penaflor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. Do you know why these persons were arrested by Lanuza? chanrobles virtual law library

A. I don't know because they were just picked up.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. Where were they brought? chanrobles virtual law library

A. They were brought to the PC Detachment located at the boundary of Lupi and Antipolo and at the PC Detachment at Tamno and then returned to Lupi.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Where is this barangay Lupi located? chanrobles virtual law library

A. San Fernando, Camarines Sur.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Do you know what happened to these persons after they were brought to Lupi? chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. What happened to them? chanrobles virtual law library

A. When they were brought back to Lupi, we heard gunshots .and there were spray of bullets and I believe those bullets comes (sic) from an armalite or machinegun because they were successive.

xxx xxx xxx

Q. After you heard the gunshots, what happened next? chanrobles virtual law library

A. What I knew, they were loaded on a jeep and were brought to the Municipal Hall already dead. (Emphasis supplied.) ¹⁶

Through this testimony, petitioner attempts to convince the Court that Lanuza is not a credible witness because of moral turpitude. ¹⁷Ranged against this contention are the trial court's finding that no proofs were adduced regarding Lanuza's participation in the operations which resulted in the "salvaging" of three youths, and its conclusion that these alleged "facts" were merely stated by defense witness Noora whose knowledge of said killings was based on rumors without any solid first hand evidence to back them up. ¹⁸chanrobles virtual law library

We are not persuaded that the defense's testimonial evidence on Lanuza's alleged moral depravity is sufficient to discredit him as a witness. Moral turpitude or depravity as a reason for exclusion of a witness is legally frowned upon mainly for the reason that any attempt to establish such an incapacity is met by two objections. One is that in rational experience, no class of persons can safely be asserted to be so thoroughly lacking in a sense of moral responsibility or so callous to the ordinary motives or veracity as not to tell the truth (as they see it) in a large or larger proportion of instances. The second objection is that, even if such a defect existed and were ascertainable, its operation is so uncertain and elusive that any general rule of exclusion would be as likely in a given instance to exclude the truth as to exclude falsities. ¹⁹ chanrobles virtual law library

Moreover, impeachment of a witness must be confined to an r attack on his general character or reputation and on his character or reputation for truth and veracity. Such impeachment cannot be directed to any particular trait or character, or r particular facts of particular wrongful or immoral acts. ²⁰Hence, the defense may not validly attack Lanuza's credibility through Noora's uncorroborated account of Lanuza's alleged participation in a rub-out, more so because Noora himself did not see it happen. In the same vein is Cordial's unsolicited information which has no factual basis that Lanuza usually speaks ill of other persons.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

We need not belabor the point that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight. ²¹Suffice it to state that under Section 18, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, even convicted criminals are not excluded from testifying in court so long as, having organs of sense, they "can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perceptions to others." chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner considers Lanuza's testimony as "not only contrary to common experience and observation of man" but also "inherently improbable. ²² He zeroes in on Lanuza's testimony that there was a lapse of "more or less five minutes" from the time he saw Cordial's group and the actual attack on Romero ²³and that Lanuza had known Cordial for the past twenty years. ²⁴chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner contends that the 5-minute lapse of time provided Lanuza with enough time "to prepare himself 'and "to forwarn the Victim ²⁵and hence, the lower court erred in finding that the attack was sudden. Petitioner also avers that Lanuza could not have known Cordial for twenty years because the latter was only 23 years old at the time of the testimony.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

We consider Lanuza's apparently erroneous reckoning or mis-estimation of time as too trivial and immaterial to discredit his testimony. ²⁶On cross-examination, Lanuza testified that although upon seeing Cordial with a knife, he knew that he and Romero would be attacked, the assault was so sudden that he had no time to prepare himself or to forwarn Romero. Repeated questioning by both the defense counsel and the court failed to unflinch Lanuza to depart from his testimony on the suddenness of the attack which left him and Romero helpless. ²⁷chanrobles virtual law library

Lanuza's claim that he had known Cordial for twenty years is too insignificant to affect his testimony. What is material is the proven fact that being residents of the same province who frequently took the same passenger jeep in San Fernando, Lanuza could have familiarized himself with Cordial's physical features to recognize him as one of the assailants. In fact, Cordial himself admitted that he came to know Lanuza because his parents had a piece of land in San Fernando and he usually went there during the planting and harvesting seasons. ²⁸ chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner also labels as inherently improbable the appellate court's finding that he sat first inside the jeep, stood up and stabbed Romero. On this matter, the appellate court said:

The appellant alleges that while Lanuza said the appellant was seated when he stabbed the victim, thereafter Lanuza said he was not sitting beside the victim but he was standing. There is no inconsistency here. What Lanuza must have meant was at the beginning appellant was seated but thereafter he stood up and stabbed the victim.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The appellant then asked how could it be possible that he would have entered the crowded jeepney to stab the victim when he could have stabbed the victim from outside. The evidence reveal that the appellant was with several companions and that it was the appellant who went inside and stabbed the victim while his other- companions stabbed Lanuza from outside. ²⁹chanrobles virtual law library

This finding of the appellate court is based on the following testimony of Lanuza:

Q. Where was Bernardo Cordial when he stabbed Emmanuel Romero? chanrobles virtual law library

A. He was inside the jeep.

xxx xxx xxx

Q. How far was Bernardo Cordial when he stabbed Emmanuel Romero? chanrobles virtual law library

A. He was able to come nearer the victim.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. How near? chanrobles virtual law library

A. More than one arm length also. ³⁰chanrobles virtual law library

COURT: chanrobles virtual law library

Q. At the time that Romero was stabbed by Cordial, was Cordial seated? chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes, your honor, Cordial was seated.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Where was Cordial seated? chanrobles virtual law library

A. Bernardo Cordial, your Honor, was inside the jeep.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. Was he seated beside Romero? chanrobles virtual law library

A. No, your honor, he was not sitting beside Romero.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. So he was standing when he stabbed Romero? chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes, he was standing, your honor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. Inside the jeep? chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes, your honor. ³¹

Lanuza's ostensible confusion is explained by his earlier testimony that there was a "rumble" during the assault. ³²However, such confusion and seeming inconsistency in his testimony cannot be considered earmarks of prevarication. On the contrary, they indicate that the witness was unrehearsed. ³³chanrobles virtual law library

A witness is credible despite minor variances in his testimony where the testimony is consistent and natural on substantial matters and is corroborated by physical evidence. ³⁴ Shorn of the portions objectionable to petitioner, Lanuza's testimony is sufficient to pinpoint culpability on Cordial. That he was the sole eyewitness of the prosecution is of no moment. There is no law which required that the testimony of a single witness in a murder or homicide case has to be corroborated. The testimony of only one witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to convict. ³⁵chanrobles virtual law library

The defense of alibi interposed by Cordial is unavailing in view of his positive Identification by Lanuza who had no proven motive to falsely accuse Cordial of a grave offense. ³⁶Furthermore, the defense failed to prove that it was physically impossible for Cordial to be at the scene of the crime. ³⁷ August 23, 1981 was a Sunday and by Cordial's admission, Sunday was a rest day for him except when there was tobacco waste to be disposed of ³⁸Also, as Cordial himself testified, Grijalvo is adjacent to Beberon where his parents resided. ³⁹ It was, therefore, not indubitably proven that he could not have been in Grijalvo on August 23, 1981 when a group of men ambushed Romero and Lanuza.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In the absence of qualifying circumstances, the courts below correctly ruled that the killing was a homicide punishable under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and not murder as charged. There being no aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the appellate court correctly imposed the aforementioned indeterminate penalty and the indemnity of P30,000.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) is hereby affirmed. Costs against the petitioner.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

1 Emilio A. Gancayco, J., ponente, Lorna S. Lombos de la Fuente and Manuel T. Reyes, JJ., concurring.chanrobles virtual law library

2 Herculano Tech, presiding judge.chanrobles virtual law library

3 TSN, August 18,1983, pp. 4 & 14; Exhibit E.chanrobles virtual law library

4 TSN, supra, p. 17.chanrobles virtual law library

5 TSN, supra, p. 20.chanrobles virtual law library

6 TSN, supra, P. 11

7 Exh. A; Exh. C; TSN, April 12,1983, pp. 4-6.chanrobles virtual law library

8 TSN, March 14,1984, p. 10.chanrobles virtual law library

9 TSN, supra, p. 9.chanrobles virtual law library

10 Cordial's typewritten statement in the Bicol dialect is attached to the Record (pp. 8-10). Therein he admitted that he was one of the persons who killed Romero and attempted to kill Lanuza. He was then with Juanita Flora alias Ka Victor, German Moscoso alias Ka German, Martin Casquejo alias Ka Meroy Felitacio Morado alias Ka Tayoy and others he knew only as Ka Larry, Ka Ronald, Ka Larry (a woman) and Ka Roldan. He knew these persons because they were all members of the New People's Army (NPA) of which he had been a member since May, 1981.chanrobles virtual law library

His group, which was led by Ka Larry, actually intended to kill Lanuza not only because the latter was part of the military but also because Ka Larry had a personal reason to kill him.chanrobles virtual law library

In the morning of August 23, German Moscoso fetched him at his house in Beberon and together they went to Grijalvo where they found three members of their group. Junior Caltiguyo German Martin Casquejo and Felitacio Morado took a jeep to San Fernando while he and others were instructed to wait for them.chanrobles virtual law library

When the jeep carrying Lanuza and Romero was approaching, they hailed it and one of their companions inside the jeep pointed at Romero and Lanuza. Together with Ka Larry, Martin Casquejo and German Moscoso', he approached Romero and stabbed him until he fell to the ground. Ka Larry then shot Romero. He stabbed Romero on the left side of the body under the armpit and he used a dagger ("daga") one inch in width and six inches in length with a wooden handle. Romero died on the spot.chanrobles virtual law library

Lanuza was attacked by Martin Casquejo, Juanita Flora and German Moscoso with knives and daggers while Ka Larry shot him. They left Lanuza lying on the ground and they thought that he was dead only to find out later that he survived because he was brought to the hospital. While they were attacking Romero and Lanuza, some of their companions watched out for possible assistance from the (PC) camp.chanrobles virtual law library

His companions had a BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle), a Garand a Thompson and some short arms. When they thought Lanuza

11 TSN, supra, p. 18.chanrobles virtual law library

12 TSN, March 14,1984, p. 3.chanrobles virtual law library

13 TSN, supra, pp. 4-7.chanrobles virtual law library

14 tsn, supra, p. 7.chanrobles virtual law library

15 TSN, supra, pp. 8-9.chanrobles virtual law library

16 TSN, July 5,1984, pp. 4-7.chanrobles virtual law library

17 Brief, p. 4

18 Order of December 12, 1984 denying- Cordial's motion for reconsideration of the lower- courts decision; Record, p. 199.chanrobles virtual law library

19 II Wigmore-e on Evidence, 1940 ed., p. 602.chanrobles virtual law library

20 98 C.J.S. 396.chanrobles virtual law library

21 People v. Patola, L-41265, February-y 27,1986,141 SCRA 401.chanrobles virtual law library

22 Petition, p. 4; Rollo, p. 7.chanrobles virtual law library

23 TSN, August 18, 1983, p. 20.chanrobles virtual law library

24 TSN, supra, p. 7.chanrobles virtual law library

25 Petition, p. 5; Rollo, p. 8.chanrobles virtual law library

26 People v. Canumay, L-29181, July 9,1984,130 SCRA 301,309.chanrobles virtual law library

27 TSN, August 18, 1983, pp. 20-25.chanrobles virtual law library

28 TSN, March 14,1984, p. 8.chanrobles virtual law library

29 Rollo, p. 15.chanrobles virtual law library

30 TSN, August 18, 1983, pp. 8-1 0.chanrobles virtual law library

31 TSN, supra, pp. 34-35.chanrobles virtual law library

32 TSN, supra, p. 8.chanrobles virtual law library

33 People v. De las Pinas, L-40586. February 19,1986,141 SCRA 379.chanrobles virtual law library

34 De Sagun v. People, G.R. No. 53196, July 31,1986,143 SCRA 255.chanrobles virtual law library

35 People v. Canada, G.R. No. 63728, September 15, 1986, 144 SCRA 121 -1 People v. Tan, Jr., G.R. No. 53834, November- 24, 1986, 145 SCRA 258.chanrobles virtual law library

36 People v. Lopez, L-47299, February 19, 1986, 141 SCRA 385, 392. 37

37 People v. Binasa, G.R. No. 63452, June 25,1984,130 SCRA 72.chanrobles virtual law library

38 TSN, March 14,1984, p. 6.chanrobles virtual law library

39 TSN, supra, pp. 14-15.