Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > February 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-28596 February 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TILOS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-28596. February 21, 1968.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANTIAGO TILOS, Defendant-Appellant.

Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Eugenio T. Senicas (counsel de oficio), for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; TREACHERY, WHEN EVIDENCE CONSIDERED ADEQUATE. — Where defendant took advantage of the relative confusion created by the shower on the crowd, so that his act and identity in stabbing the deceased would not be detected by the people in the dance hall, and so that his escape would be facilitated, there was treachery.

2. EVIDENCE; WITNESSES; CREDIBILITY. — The fact that the witness and the accused had previously quarreled and almost came to blows over the rationing of food in the jail, though capable of producing some bad feelings between the two, cannot suffice to cause the witness to testify falsely against the defendant and impute on him the grave offense of murder. The friction engendered by such quarrel, therefore, does not impair his credibility. The rule, to follow is that the finding of the trial court in regard to credibility of witnesses shall not be disturbed in the absence of serious, forceful and cogent reasons that render the testimony unacceptable.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


Rolando Banhao 1 and Santiago Tilos were detention prisoners in the Negros Occidental provincial jail situated in Bacolod City. On January 6, 1965, they were removed from their cells and taken to the yard, also within the jail, by and under the custody of Francisco Castillo, one of the provincial guards.

It was the practice of the guards to take out from the cells some prisoners and assign them some work in their households inside the jail or at the yard therein. In such cases, the guard who takes the prisoners signs for their custody.

At around eleven o’clock that evening, Rolando Castillo, son of provincial guard Francisco Castillo, who lived with his father inside the jail, came from the dance hall about 100 meters in front of the jail, where there was a dance, and went inside the jail. And there he invited detention prisoners Santiago Tilos and Rolando Banhao to go with him to the dance. At first Banhao said that he did not want to go without the permission of Rolando Castillo’s father, their custodian. Rolando Castillo, however, told him not to worry as he, Rolando Castillo, will answer for the consequences. And, thereupon, the three went out through the prison’s rear gate and proceeded towards the dance hall.

At the dance hall’s entrance, Rolando Castillo and Santiago Tilos bought tickets. Rolando Banhao preferred to stay outside, saying that he did not know how to dance. Rolando Castillo and Santiago Tilos entered the dance hall. Rolando Banhao stood near the dance hall by the side of its gate; his two companions were able to dance.

After a while, there was a shower. Rolando Castillo and Santiago Tilos were standing near Banhao, after having brought the girls they were dancing with to their respective places. Since there was a shower, the people in the dance hall went out of said hall. At this point, while people were going out, Rolando Banhao saw Santiago Tilos stab a man in white shirt, hitting the latter in front. Said man who was stabbed went back to the dance hall. Shouts of stabbing followed. Santiago Tilos and Rolando Castillo ran back to the provincial jail. Rolando Banhao followed them. And there inside the jail, Banhao overheard his two companions talk about the stabbing.

The person stabbed, identified as Gaudencio Olivas, died the next day in the provincial hospital of Negros Occidental, due to a stab wound, two inches long, which penetrated and cut through his abdominal cavity, causing severe internal hemorrhage.

The foregoing is the substance of the prosecution’s evidence against defendant Santiago Tilos in support of the information for murder filed against him on September 9, 1965 in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. Rolando Castillo, also included in said information, was at large and thus not included in the trial.

The defense sought to establish, on the other hand, that Santiago Tilos never left the jail that day. Aside from his own testimony to this effect, defendant through counsel presented the prison’s "Custodian’s Report of Prisoners for January 6, 1965" (Exh. 1) 2 which shows Rolando Banhao in the list of those under protective custody (taken out of the cell) that day, but does not include defendant’s name. Francisco Castillo, the provincial guard, was also presented by the defense to prove that defendant never got out the jail on the date in question.

After trial, defendant was found guilty, as charged, of murder and sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the deceased’s heirs in the amount of P6,000.00 and to pay the costs. Appeal was taken by defendant to the Court of Appeals which properly certified the same to this Court, in view of the penalty imposed.

The present case turns on the credibility of prosecution eyewitness Rolando Banhao. Appellant contends that said witness merely "invented" the story against him because they had previously quarreled, and almost came to blows, over the rationing of food in the jail. Such an incident, though capable of though some bad feelings between the two cannot suffice to cause Rolando Banhao to testify falsely against the defendant and impute on him the grave offense of murder. The friction engendered by such quarrel, therefore, does not impair Rolando Banhao’s credibility, as found and sustained by the court a quo. The rule to follow here is that the finding of the trial court in regard to credibility of a witness shall not be disturbed in the absence of serious, forceful and cogent reasons that render the testimony unacceptable. And in this case, We found none.

The so-called list of persons taken out from the cells in the "Custodian’s Report" for the day is not conclusive evidence that defendant was not so taken out. For, his own witness, provincial guard Francisco Castillo, testified that he took defendant that day out of his cell and into his custody (TSN, Akot, p. 34), and that, on January 6, 1965, he was the guard in custody of Rolando Banhao and the defendant (TSN, Akot, p. 42).

As well observed by the court a quo, the trio could have easily passed through the rear gate, considering that Rolando Castillo was the son of one of the provincial guards. Neither was said rear gate heavily guarded. Francisco Castillo testified that it had only "a guard" (TSN, Akot, p. 40).

The Solicitor General in his brief recommends that defendant be found guilty only of homicide, stating that, in his view, treachery is not borne out by the evidence. Our consideration, however, of the facts shown in the record, particularly Rolando Banhao’s testimony, convinces Us that treachery has been adequately established. As recounted by said witness, defendant stabbed the deceased at the time when, on account of the shower, people were going out of the dance hall to seek for cover. Advantage was therefore taken by defendant of the relative confusion created by the shower on the crowd, so that his act and identity would not be detected by the people in the dance hall, and so that his escape would be facilitated. The record, therefore, truly supports defendant’s conviction for murder. The sentence imposed is correct.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is affirmed, without costs. Let a copy of this decision be sent to the Honorable Secretary of Justice, for proper action with reference to the continuation of the prosecution of Rolando Castillo. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Alias Rolando Fortaleza.

2. This Exhibit is not in the record, the same having been "withdrawn" as stated in the minutes of July 16, 1966, Rollo, p. 16.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 381 February 10, 1968 - EMILIO CAPULONG, ET AL. v. MANUEL G. ALIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-23342 February 10, 1968 - MACARIO ALQUIZA, ET AL. v. PLACIDO ALQUIZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22944 February 10, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIA SAN JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22067 February 10, 1968 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., INC. v. JOSE SOTOMAYOR

  • G.R. No. L-24147 February 10, 1968 - FEDERICO R. CASTRO, ET AL. v. MATILDE PARA-ON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24319 February 10, 1968 - LONDON ASSURANCE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24950 February 10, 1968 - IN RE: JAO KING YOG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25314 February 10, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF TACURONG v. ROSARIO ABRAGAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • G.R. No. L-23433 February 10, 1968 - GLORIA G. JOCSON v. RICARDO R. ROBLES

  • G.R. No. L-28455 February 10, 1968 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23882 February 17, 1968 - M.D. TRANSIT & TAXI CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 106 February 17, 1968 - IRINEO A. MERCADO v. ENRIQUE MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-19227 February 17, 1968 - DIOSDADO YULIONGSIU v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-20411 February 17, 1968 - BARTOLOME E. SAN DIEGO v. SALVADOR R. VILLAGRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22138 February 17, 1968 - ANG CHING GI v. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23794 February 17, 1968 - ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC. v. TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23861 February 17, 1968 - EMILIANA CRUZ v. ERNESTO OPPEN, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24289 February 17, 1968 - CENTRAL TAXICAB CORPORATION v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24529 February 17, 1968 - EDUARDO JIMENEZ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24910 February 17, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28170 & L-28200 February 17, 1968 - CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28519 February 17, 1968 - RICARDO PARULAN v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-26934 February 19, 1968 - WISE & COMPANY, INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20722 February 20, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO ALEGARME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23595 February 20, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO ANG GUI, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-28596 February 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TILOS

  • G.R. No. L-28517 February 21, 1968 - AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23539 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DALTON

  • G.R. No. L-24033 February 22, 1968 - PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. UNITED STATES LINES

  • G.R. No. L-24146 February 22, 1968 - MIGUEL MABILIN, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO S. MILLAR

  • G.R. No. L-24223 February 22, 1968 - CORNELIO AGUILA, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24225 February 22, 1968 - MANUEL CUDIAMAT, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO E. TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-24546 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS MACALISANG

  • G.R. No. L-24364 February 22, 1968 - BIENVENIDO MEDRANO v. FILEMON MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-25529 February 22, 1968 - BENJAMIN PANGANIBAN, ET AL. v. ARACELI VDA. DE STA. MARIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26767 February 22, 1968 - ANG TIONG v. LORENZO TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23859 February 22, 1968 - CONSOLIDATED TEXTILE MILLS, INC. v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22579 February 23, 1968 - ROLANDO LANDICHO v. LORENZO RELOVA

  • G.R. No. L-23793 February 23, 1968 - ORMOC SUGARCANE PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23960 & L-23961 February 26, 1968 - DIWA NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU v. FILTEX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-23425 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. MIGUEL FORTICH CELDRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24241 February 26, 1968 - HATIB ABBAIN v. TONGHAM CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21853 February 26, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF OPON v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23803 February 26, 1968 - C.F. SHARP & COMPANY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23687 February 26, 1968 - GO LEA CHU, ET AL. v. CORAZON GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24362 February 26, 1968 - TACLOBAN ELECTRIC & ICE PLANTS CO., INC. v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24619 February 26, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24864 February 26, 1968 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25035 February 26, 1968 - EDUARDA S. VDA. DE GENUINO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-25152 February 26, 1968 - PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25335 February 26, 1968 - SUN BROS. APPLIANCES v. TRINITY LUNCHEONETTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25383 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. FRANCISCO ARCA

  • G.R. No. L-19347 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL GAMAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22476 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SENANDO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25491 February 27, 1968 - BIENVENIDO F. REYES v. ROMEO G. ABELEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28651 February 27, 1968 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AMERICAN PIONEER LINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19200 February 27, 1968 - EMILIO SY v. MANUEL DALMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20081 February 27, 1968 - MELQUIADES RAAGAS, ET AL. v. OCTAVIO TRAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23385 February 27, 1968 - IN RE: SANTIAGO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21624 February 27, 1968 - SEGUNDO SANTOS v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25176 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO YAP, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-27360 February 28, 1968 - RICARDO G. PAPA v. REMEDIOS MAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24284 February 28, 1968 - JAIME LIM v. LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-2849 February 28, 1968 - DOMACAO ALONTO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23335 & L-23452 February 29, 1968 - ROSITA C. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22390 February 29, 1968 - IN RE: TAN KHE SHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24064 February 29, 1968 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-28597 February 29, 1968 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-20990 February 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN v. AGUSTIN PARIÑA