Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > January 2010 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 165543 : January 13, 2010] DAVID RONDERO Y OZAETA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 13 January 2010:

G.R. No. 165543: DAVID RONDERO y OZAETA, petitioner, versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Before the Court is an appeal by certiorari^[1] assailing the Decision^[2] dated 10 November 2003 and Resolution^[3] dated 20 September 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 25082. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision dated 28 December 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City, Branch 3.

On 23 July 1989 at around 7 o'clock in the evening, appellant David Rondero y Ozaeta (Rondero), armed with an M-16 Armalite rifle, shot Gregorio and Amie Rodriguez while the two were on their way home. Gregorio suffered four gunshot wounds and one grazing wound which caused his death. Amie was hit at the leg although her wound was not fatal.

Gregorio's son, Isagani, asked for help and reported the shooting incident to the San Jose, Batangas police station. Several policemen went with Isagani to Brgy. Lumil to investigate. Upon alighting at Bliss, they met Rondero. When Isagani saw Rondero, he hit Rondero with his fists. Isagani allegedly uttered "Putang-ina mo, pinatay mo ang aking ama."

Two separate informations for murder and frustrated murder, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 4542 and 4543, respectively, were filed with the RTC of Batangas City, Branch 3. At the-arraignment, Rondero pleaded not guilty in both cases and gave the defenses of denial and alibi.

The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Isagani Rodriguez, Dr. Rosario Blanco, Primitiva Rodriguez, Pat. Nestor Amando, Pat. Aniceto Lingal, Dr. Norberto Arambulo, and Amie Rodriguez. The witnesses for the defense were the accused Rondero and Mario Marquez.

In its Decision dated 28 December 2000, the RTC found Rondero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide for killing Gregorio Rodriguez and slight physical injuries for shooting Amie Rodriguez in the leg. In Criminal Case No. 4542, Rondero was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 9 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 15 yrs of reclusion temporal, as maximum and was ordered to pay the amount of P24,000 as actual damages, P50,000 as civil indemnity and to pay the costs. In Criminal Case No. 4543, Rondero was sentenced to suffer the penalty of 20 days of arresto menor, medium, and to pay P439.45 as actual damages and to pay the costs.

The RTC found that the defense failed to substantiate its claim that the prosecution witnesses were angry at Rondero. The RTC stated that where the defense fails to prove that witnesses are moved by improper motives, the presumption is that they are not so moved and their testimonies are entitled to fall weight and credit.

The RTC also found that the police blotter report made by Isagani without initially identifying the accused was not a ground to junk the witness' credibility Delay in divulging the names of perpetrators does not impair the credibility of the witness nor destroy its probative value. With the positive identification of Rondero as the assailant, the invocation of denial and alibi was untenable.

The RTC added that the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was not sufficiently established. Thus, Rondero is guilty only of the crime of homicide in Criminal Case No. 4542. In Criminal Case No. 4543, Rondero should only be liable for slight physical injuries since Amie suffered a non-fatal wound and was immediately treated at the hospital. There was no evidence presented that she was incapacitated for 9 days or required medical attendance for the same period.

Rondero filed an appeal with the CA.

The CA affirmed with modification the RTC's decision. In Criminal Case No. 4543, Rondero was found guilty of attempted homicide and was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as maximum and was ordered to pay the costs. The CA ruled that the crime perpetrated by Rondero was attempted homicide since intent to kill was evident in the use of a high-powered firearm although the injuries inflicted on Amie were found not to be fatal.

Hence, this petition.

The issue is whether the appellate court erred in finding appellant Rondero guilty of homicide and attempted homicide.

The petition lacks merit.

Rondero insists that he is entitled to an acquittal based on reasonable doubt as shown by the facts and circumstances submitted by the prosecution: (1) that immediately after the incident, Isagani reported to the police station that his father and sister were shot by unidentified assailants; however, there was a long delay in identifying the identity of Rondero as the alleged assailant; (2) the chance meeting at Bliss, where Isagani allegedly boxed Rondero and uttered "putang-ina mo, pinatay mo ang aking ama," was not established by substantial evidence but was only fabricated by Isagani; and (3) the motive of private complainants in falsely charging Rondero for the crimes he did not commit was fully established by the evidence.

The Court of Appeals already thoroughly reviewed the evidence submitted by Rondero and came up with the following findings-

Failure to immediately reveal the identity of the perpetrator of a crime does not affect, much less impair, the credibility of witnesses, more so if such delay has been adequately explained. In this case, witness Isagani Rodriguez satisfactorily explained why he did not promptly mention the name of his father's assailant when he initially reported the incident to the authorities. Isagani said that fear engulfed his being when he reported the incident, x x x

But upon his return to Barangay Lumil that very same evening of July 23, 1989, already in the company of police officers who went with him to investigate and met by chance the appellant, Isagani blocked out (sic) and could only faintly box the appellant several times, asking the latter why he killed his father. Which scenario very graphically demonstrated the truth spontaneously issuing out from Isagani's lips that appellant was the malefactor.

x x xx

Appellant likewise contends that witnesses Isagani Rodriguez and Ricardo Rodriguez are not worthy of credence.

That a witness who testified in a candid, categorical and consistent manner is a credible witness is, however, the universal rule.

Tested against the rule, the testimonies of Isagani and Ricardo are candid, categorical, consistent and conform to ordinary human experience. Isagani testified that on the night of the incident, he fetched his father Gregorio, the victim, who was viewing television in a nearby aunt's house, and reported that he saw appellant roaming suspiciously near their house. His cousin Ricardo, who was staying at [his] aunt's house, decided to accompany them. Gregorto decided to go straight home and the two (2) just followed him later. This explains clearly and logically why the witnesses were at the scene of the incident, x x x

Where no ill-motive could be attributed to the witnesses for imputing a grave offense against the accused, their identification of the latter shall be given full faith and credit.

Accused, on the other hand, merely came out with alibi to establish his innocence, x x x

Finally, the positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime by the witnesses has completely demolished his alibi. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused, x x x^[4]

In Santiago v. Court of Appeals,^[5] we held that entries in the police blotter should not be given significance or probative value, as they do not constitute a conclusive proof of the truth. These entries are usually incomplete and inaccurate, as sometimes they are taken from either partial suggestion or inaccurate reporting and are hearsay, untested in the crucible of a trial on the merits.

Proceeding from the above doctrine, the entries in the police blotter relied upon by appellant which raise doubt as to his identification are mere prima facie proof and cannot be considered as conclusive evidence of the truth of such entries.

Further, we have time and again ruled that positive identification by a witness cannot prevail over the defenses of denial and alibi.^[6] A denial unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence is negative, self-serving, merits no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimonies of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.^[7]

Here, no weight can be given to Rondero's denial and alibi since he did not present any strong and credible evidence to overcome the prosecution witnesses' testimonies identifying him as the perpetrator of the offenses charged. The absence of improper motive makes a witness' testimony worthy of full faith and credence. Thus, we see no reason to disturb the findings of the Court of Appeals.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 10 November 2003 and Resolution dated 20 September 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 25082 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. (Brion, J., no part; Villarama, Jr., J., additional member)

WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (designated additional member per Raffle dated 14 December 2009) and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 13^th day of January, 2010.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

^[2] Rollo, pp. 29-43. Penned by Justice Salvador J. Vaidez, Jr. with Justices Josefma Guevara-Salonga and Arturo D. Brion (now a member of this Court), concurring.

^[3] Id. at 54-55.

^[4] Id. at 35-41.

^[5] 356 Phil. 647 (1998).

^[6] People v. Vergara, G.R. 186119, 27 October2009.

^[7] Id., citing People v. Alviz, G.R. Nos. 144551-55, 29 June 2004, 433 SCRA 164.