ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 126303. January 18, 2000]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. vs. ALBERTO NULLAN y BINLAIO, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 18 2000.

G.R. No. 126303 (People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Nullan y Binlaio, Vicente Alagaban y Lagunuy and Edgar Maligaya Nullan.)

For resolution are two motions for the reconsideration of this Court's decision, dated 14 April 1999, filed for appellants (1) Nullan and Alagaban and (2) Maligaya. Movants claim that the discrepancies, inconsistencies and improbabilities permeating the case are so substantial and material as to merit a judgment of acquittal. The improbabilities and inconsistencies basically referred to are the supposed discrepancies in the affidavit of the eyewitness (Alden Adona) on the number of the culprits who have taken part in the incident. Movants insist that the variances in the affidavit are irreconcilable.

The Court disagrees.

In the first sworn statement, dated 26 July 1995, and given the day after the incident, the witness had already made mention of four suspects in the commission of the crime. Thus:

"08. T : Maari bang sabihin mo sa akin muli ang iyong nalita ugnay sa pangyayaring ito?

S : Gani to po iyon, Kahapon po, petsa 25 ng Hulyo, 1995 bandang alas-5:00 ng hapon habang ako ay nagtitinda ng BBQ ay mayroon akong naging kustomer na apat na lalaki na pawang bago sa aking paningin at iyong dalawa dito ay umorder ng San Miguel beer at iyong dalawa naman ay softdrinks lang ang inorder at napansin ko sa kanilang apat na palinga-linga sila na parang may hinahanap o parang may hinihintay at tapos niyon mga bandang alas-7:00 ng gabi ay umalis na rin sila ng sabay sabay."

Unfortunately, only three of the four suspects were apprehended by the police, and Adona was able to identify the third conspirator only when he saw Maligaya for the third time at the Manila City Jail.

We reiterate what was said in our ruling:

"Appellant Maligaya's insistence that there were only two (2) men involved in the shooting of Gotanci, namely Nullan, the triggerman, and Alagaban, the look-out, had not been borne out at all. Adona executed a sworn statement particularly describing and identifying the back-up of Nullan, namely Edgar Maligaya, the third conspirator in the crime. The witness stated that there were four participants in the crime conspiracy although he was able to only identify and pinpoint to the police investigators three (3) of them, namely: (1) Alberto Nullan - the gunman, (2) Vicente Alagaban - the look-out and (3) Edgar Maligaya - the back-up of Nullan. At all events, Adona's testimony in court should carry more weight than the ex-parte narrations in his affidavit. Sworn statements are generally incomplete 1 People vs. Sarellana, 233 SCRA 31; People vs. Matildo, 230 SCRA 635. and rightly subordinated in importance to open court declarations. 2 People vs. Padao, 267 SCRA 64; People vs. Salazar, 277 SCRA 67; Sumalpang vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 764; People vs. Empleo, 226 SCRA 454.

"'The Court has carefully scrutinized the testimony of Alden Adona and sees no reversible error on the part of the trial court in these findings:

"Not only this. Alden Adona has been subjected to searching cross-examination by two competent and well motivated defense counsels, such that any fabrication in his narration could have been detected and exposed. However, he withstood the ordeal and maintained his testimony. More than this, in view of the gravity of the crime charged and the penalty which may be imposed on the accused if they were pronounced guilty, the Court closely monitored and observed the demeanor of the principal witness of the People from the moment he swore to tell the truth until he was discharged from the witness chair, ever watchful for any sign and earmark which may betray falsehood in his declaration. The Court perceived none of such sign or earmark of fabrication. On the contrary, it was impressed by the candid, frank, forthright and straightforward manner Alden Adona answered every question propounded on him by the counsels, and narrated his version. Being reasonable, reliable and ringing with truth, the Court finds the testimony of prosecution eyewitness Alden Adona worthy of belief.'" 3 Rollo , pp. 227-228 .

Movant Edgar Maligaya, in his case, also questions the constitutionality of the death penalty. In the case of People vs. Echegaray, 4 267 SCRA 682. the Court has sealed this issue; 5 Although four justices have maintained their dissent. thus:

"Consequently, we have time and again emphasized that our courts are not the fora for a protracted debate on the morality or propriety of the death sentence where the law itself provides therefore in specific and well-defined criminal acts. Thus we had ruled in the 1951 case of Limaco that:

"'x x x there are quite a number of people who honestly believe that the supreme penalty is either morally wrong or unwise or ineffective. However, as long as that penalty remains in the statute books, and as long as our criminal law provides for its imposition in certain cases, it is the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the law regardless of their private opinions.'

and this we have reiterated in the 1995 case of People v. Veneracion." 6 At pp. 694-695.

Accused-appellants have been accorded all the substantive and procedural safeguards to ensure the propriety of the death sentence on all three of them. The claim that they have been inadequately represented by counsel, a PAO lawyer, is totally unwarranted. In passing, we agree with the statement of the Solicitor General that a government lawyer is almost always burdened with a heavy workload, but that circumstance alone does not resultantly diminish his competence, dedication and motivation.

It appearing that no substantial argument has been adduced by movants to merit a reconsideration of our decision, the two motions for reconsideration must perforce fail.

WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration filed by appellants dated 06 July 1999 and 15 May 1999 are DENIED. This denial is final.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE