Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1994 > December 1994 Decisions > G.R. No. 101507 December 29, 1994 - RAMON T. LOPEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 101507. December 29, 1994.]

RAMON T. LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; TESTIMONIES; AFFIDAVIT OF RETRACTION; DOES NOT NECESSARILY VITIATE THE ORIGINAL TESTIMONY IF CREDIBLE; REASONS THEREOF. — Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in not giving credence to the recantation of Dizon, who executed an affidavit of desistance stating that he was not sure whether petitioner was one of the malefactors. We have previously held that mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony if credible. The Court looks with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in court. The rationale for the rule is obvious: Affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from witnesses, usually through intimidation or for a monetary consideration. Recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability that it will later be repudiated. Where a witness testifies for the prosecution and retracts his testimony and subsequently testifies for the defense, the test of determining which testimony to believe is one of comparison coupled with the application of the general rules of evidence. A testimony solemnly given in court should not be set aside lightly and before this can be done, both the previous testimony and the subsequent one should be carefully juxtaposed and the circumstances under which each was scrutinized. In other words, all the expedients devised by man to determine the credibility of a witness should be utilized to ascertain which of the contradictory testimonies represents the truth. It would be risky to reject the testimony taken before the court of justice simply because the witness who has given it later may change his mind for one reason or another. Such rule will make a solemn trial a mockery and place the investigation at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses.

2. CRIMINAL LAW; ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972; PENALTY WHEN COMMITTED BY MEANS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS; APPLICATION OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW. — The "carnapping" in this case was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. The penalty prescribed under Section 14 of R.A. No. 6539 is "imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty years." Under Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, if an offense is punished by a special law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. In fixing the maximum penalty, the trial court must have taken into consideration the fact that the stolen car was recovered the same day.


D E C I S I O N


QUIASON, J.:


This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 07388, which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Manila in Criminal Case No. 84-25155.cralawnad

I


The Information filed against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Manila reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned accuses RAMON LOPEZ y TUGNAO of violation of Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about March 13, 1984, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspiring and confederating with three others whose true names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation, to wit: by approaching one EMMANUEL DIZON y NARIO, driver of a Mitsubishi Colt Lancer four-door sedan bearing Plate No. PDY-765, while inside the UST Compound, this City, pointing bladed weapons at him and stabbing him with the same, driving said vehicle to Dasmariñas, Cavite where they left said EMMANUEL DIZON y NARIO, forcibly take, steal and carry away the following motor vehicle, against the latter’s will, to wit: one (1) brown Mitsubishi Colt Lancer, 4-door sedan, 1983 Model bearing Plate No. PDY-765, valued at P87,000.00, belonging to said Emmanuel Dizon y Nario, to the damage and prejudice of said owner in the aforesaid sum of P87,000.00, Philippine currency" (Records p. 1)

Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. On June 20, 1989, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision, rejecting the retraction made by the complaining witness, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate sentence of seventeen (17) years and four (4) months as minimum to twenty (20) years as maximum, and to pay the costs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Hence this petition.

II


The facts as found by the trial court and accepted by the Court of Appeals are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On March 13, 1984, at around 2:00 P.M., complainant, Emmanuel N. Dizon, parked his car at the campus of the University of Santo Tomas, España, Manila, to wait for his cousin. While he was seated at the driver’s seat, four men approached the car. One of them was petitioner, who poked a knife at Dizon. Another companion of petitioner got into the right front seat while the two others occupied the back seat of the car. Dizon was pulled out of the driver’s seat and forced to sit at the back. Petitioner then took over the wheel. After announcing that they were staging a carnap, they asked for the car key. As Dizon was slow in giving the key, he was stabbed at the right portion of his abdomen. After getting the key, petitioner drove the car away. The other malefactors stabbed Dizon several times, hitting him on the right brow, elbow, shoulder, right hip and knees. Thereafter they punched him with their fists. At a certain point, petitioner stopped the car to allow his companions to buy a piece of rope, which they used to hog-tie Dizon. They also covered Dizon’s face with a shirt. Dizon was then brought to Cavite where he was thrown out of the car. He lost consciousness. When he regained consciousness, he found all his tormentors gone. He was able to free himself and seek help. Some barangay tanods brought him to the University Medical Center in Dasmariñas, Cavite.

Meanwhile, the family of Dizon received a call from the hospital, informing them that he was confined therein and that his vehicle was carnapped.

Dizon’s father and three brothers proceeded in their jeep to the hospital. While driving along Roxas Boulevard, Manila, they saw the "carnapped" car going in the same direction. They deliberately bumped the car to force it to stop. They then jumped out of the jeep and opened the door of the stalled car. They found petitioner in the driver’s seat, with a companion seated beside him. A brother of Dizon called a policeman, who arrested petitioner and his companion. The father and brothers of Dizon then proceeded to the hospital where Dizon was being treated. Dizon was then asked if petitioner and his companion were the ones who took the car and mauled him. He identified only petitioner as one of the malefactors.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

On his part, petitioner denied having carnapped the vehicle. According to him, he was merely asked by Darel Jacinto to drive the vehicle to the corner of Augusto Francisco and Nakar Streets and to deliver it to certain George. He consented to drive the vehicle but he proceeded first to a restaurant at Roxas Boulevard to take his merienda. Unfortunately, he was not able to do so because the vehicle he was driving was bumped by a jeepney.

III


Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in not giving credence to the recantation of Dizon, who executed an affidavit of desistance stating that he was not sure whether petitioner was one of the malefactors.

We have previously held that mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony if credible (People v. Dulay, 217 SCRA 103 [1993]). The Court looks with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in court. The rationale for the rule is obvious: Affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from witnesses, usually through intimidation or for a monetary consideration. Recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability that it will later be repudiated (People v. Clamor, 198 SCRA 642 [1991]).

Where a witness testifies for the prosecution and retracts his testimony and subsequently testifies for the defense, the test of determining which testimony to believe is one of comparison coupled with the application of the general rules of evidence (Reano v. Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA 525 [1988]).

A testimony solemnly given in court should not be set aside lightly and before this can be done, both the previous testimony and the subsequent one should be carefully juxtaposed and the circumstances under which each was scrutinized. In other words, all the expedients devised by man to determine the credibility of a witness should be utilized to ascertain which of the contradictory testimonies represents the truth (People v. Clamor, supra).

It would be risky to reject the testimony taken before the court of justice simply because the witness who has given it later may change his mind for one reason or another. Such rule will make a solemn trial a mockery and place the investigation at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses (De Guzman v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 184 SCRA 128 [1990]).

To ensure that justice is not denied, the Court has carefully gone over the transcript of stenographic notes of the testimony of the complainant. We have reached the same conclusion as that of trial court and the Court of Appeals.

On direct testimony, Dizon testified as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q By the way, did you recognize who were these persons?

A No, sir. I did not recognize them.

Q If you will see them, you will recognize them?

A Yes, sir.

Q And how many of these four (4) would you recognize?

A I can only recognize one at this moment, sir.

Q Is he here in court?

A Yes, sir.

Q If you know him will you point to him.

A That one, sir, (Witness pointing to a man in a stripped polo shirt who, when asked of his name, gave the same as Ramon Lopez). (TSN, p. 9-10, February 25, 1985, Direct Examination of E. Dizon).

Q The question is did you see the accused again?

Fiscal

Where?

A Yes Sir, he was also in the hospital.

Atty. Dionido

Q Why was the accused there?

Witness

A I was asked to identify him, sir.

Q Who made you identify the accused in this case?

A I think a police investigator, sir.

x       x       x


Q And then during that time that alleged investigator asked you what did they asked you about this case.

A They asked if they were the ones who carnapped the car, sir.

Q You mentioned "sila" who were they?

A Ramon Lopez and I do not know the others, sir.

Q And then, after asking if who among them perpetrated the crime, what did you answer to the investigator?

A I only pointed to Ramon because I recognized him, sir (TSN, Feb. 25, 1985, pp. 23-25).

On cross examination, Dizon testified as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q Now after you were pulled into the rear seat, you said that one of the accused entered the car on the front door, left. Who opened the door?

A The accused, sir (Witness pointing to accused Ramon Lopez).

Q You could recall very distinctly the features of these four (4) people that entered the car notwithstanding the elements of surprise and fear which came unto you at the very time?

A Yes, sir (TSN, February 25, 1985, p. 45).

The recanted testimony of Dizon reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q Mr. Witness, in the information filed in court, you charged Ramon Lopez y Tugnao who as alleged in the information, was the person who used to force and violence upon you on March 13, 1984, with the end of (sic) view of getting this Mitsubishi Colt Lancer?

A He looks like the one who took my car, sir.

Q You just stated Mr. Witness that quoting you, he looks like the person who took my car on March 13, 1984, you are positive or certain that this person here, the accused, was the very same person who took your car on March 13, 1984?

A I am not sure when I pointed to him if he was the one who took my car, sir (TSN, p. 7, March 15, 1989).

Q How come that you are changing and clarifying your stand only now?

A Because of the lapse of the time that the case is dragging, it is only now that I realized that he was not the culprit, sir (TSN, p. 11, March 15, 1989).

Q Now this case happened or took place on March 13, 1984, yet (sic) and now is 1989 or more or less a period of four (4) years, you executed this affidavit of desistance after four years. Why is it that it took you four years to change your mind and testify in favor of the accused?

A Because of the time that lapse, he is no longer in my mind and my conscience bothers me, sir.

Q Did you have the time to see the fiscal’s office to tell that you are now bothered in testifying against the accused?

A Because I was angry at the time, sir.

Q The question is do you have no time going to the fiscal’s office and tell us that you are bothered by your conscience?

A None, sir.

Q But you have the time to see the accused and the counsel for the accused?

Atty. Fernandez:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Objection, you honor, I only met the witness here in court.

Fiscal:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Regardless of where you met the counsel? witness

A None, sir.

Q But you have the time to see them?

A Yes, sir (TSN, March 15, 1989, p. 11).

Between the testimony of Dizon as prosecution witness on one hand and that of his affidavit of recantation and testimony for the defense on the other hand, the former must be given credence and the latter rejected. His testimony as a prosecution witness was coherent, clear, precise and unwavering even in the face of the cross-examination conducted by the defense counsel. In so doing, he positively identified petitioner as the culprit and lucidly described how petitioner took his car.

IV


The "carnapping" in this case was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. The penalty prescribed under Section 14 of R.A. No. 6539 is "imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty years." Under Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, if an offense is punished by a special law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. In fixing the maximum penalty, the trial court must have taken into consideration the fact that the stolen car was recovered the same day.chanrobles law library

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.




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






December-1994 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-959 December 1, 1994 - WILSON NG v. ARACELI A. ALFARO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-822 December 1, 1994 - EDWIN BETGUEN, ET AL. v. DOMINGA P. MASANGCAY

  • G.R. Nos. 93514-15 December 1, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO SABELLINA

  • G.R. No. 93520 December 1, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO C. SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 98169-73 December 1, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM MALAGAR

  • G.R. No. 101949 December 1, 1994 - HOLY SEE v. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 106286-87 December 1, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO S. CUACHON

  • G.R. No. 106633 December 1, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AVELINO ESCALANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110598 December 1, 1994 - MONA A. TOMALI v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113747 December 1, 1994 - DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 109125 December 2, 1994 - ANG YU ASUNCION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-781 December 2, 1994 - NERIO G. ZAMORA v. TOMAS A. JUMAMOY

  • G.R. No. 106685 December 2, 1994 - SIMPLICIO A. PALANCA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-971 December 5, 1994 - CIRILO R. BALAGAPO, JR. v. DEMOSTHENES C. DUQUILLA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-897 December 5, 1994 - CYNTHIA L. LARDIZABAL v. OSCAR A. REYES

  • Adm. Matter No. 93-9-249-CA December 5, 1994 - IN RE: MARIA CORONEL

  • G.R. No. L-50691 December 5, 1994 - EUSEBIO V. FONACIER, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69996 December 5, 1994 - FERNANDO PERIQUET, JR. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104217 December 5, 1994 - MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109698 December 5, 1994 - ANTONIO DIAZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106018 December 5, 1994 - WILFREDO VERDEJO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104776 December 5, 1994 - BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN, ET AL. v. POEA ADMINISTRATOR

  • G.R. No. 103702 December 6, 1994 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN NARCISO, QUEZON, ET AL. v. ANTONIO V. MENDEZ, SR.

  • G.R. No. 73352 December 6, 1994 - TANDUAY DISTILLERY LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-92-695 December 7, 1994 - CYNTHIA A. FLORENDO v. EXEQUIEL ENRILE

  • G.R. No. 107383 December 7, 1994 - FELIX NIZURTADO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114783 December 8, 1994 - ROBERT V. TOBIAS, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104147 December 8, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTHER NOBLES BANS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117376 December 8, 1994 - IN RE: OSCAR DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. VICENTE VINARAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106436 December 8, 1994 - VIRGILIO D. IMSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 111009-12 December 8, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE S. FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109778 December 8, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOMEDES A. ADOFINA

  • G.R. No. 96821 December 9, 1994 - LA TONDEÑA WORKERS UNION v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112182 December 12, 1994 - BRICKTOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AMOR TIERRA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112203 December 13, 1994 - ROBERTO SEGISMUNDO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-949 December 13, 1994 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. DEL ROSARIO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1019 December 13, 1994 - ARTURO Q. PELGONE v. RODOLFO M. ESPARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. 110834 December 13, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR COBRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113474 December 13, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO FERNANDEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-873 December 14, 1994 - LILY MOCLES v. MABINI M. MARAVILLA

  • G.R. No. 87179 December 14, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO MERABUENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103737 December 15, 1994 - NORA S. EUGENIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114393 December 15, 1994 - MANUEL CAIÑA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111003 December 15, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO ESTRELLANES, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108813 December 15, 1994 - JUSMAG PHILIPPINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-90-447 December 16, 1994 - EMMA J. CASTILLO v. MANUEL M. CALANOG, JR.

  • G.R. No. 106654 December 16, 1994 - PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104954 December 18, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO FABRO Y ARQUIZA

  • G.R. Nos. 113472-73 December 20, 1994 - ONG CHING PO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110886 December 20, 1994 - ROSALIO L. FLORENDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108533 December 20, 1994 - LOU A. ATIENZA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108555 December 20, 1994 - RAMON TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102420 December 20, 1994 - PROSPERO A. OLIVAS v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 94-9-297-RTC December 22, 1994 - IN RE: PRISCILLA HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 104373 December 22, 1994 - LUZ ARDENA SALAME, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108584 December 22, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PETRONILO ABAPO

  • G.R. No. 105832 December 22, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUNNY UTINAS

  • G.R. No. 115381 December 23, 1994 - KILUSANG MAYO UNO LABOR CENTER v. JESUS B. GARCIA, JR., ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-746 December 27, 1994 - RAFAEL AQUINO, SR., ET AL. v. JULITO B. VALENCIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83987 December 27, 1994 - GREATER BALANGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. MUNICIPALITY OF BALANGA, BATAAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105338 December 27, 1994 - APOLINARIO MANIPON, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107761 December 27, 1994 - ASSOCIATION OF MARINE OFFICERS v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104444-49 December 27, 1994 - PHESCO, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 93632-33 December 28, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELESTINO ABAPO

  • G.R. No. 100981 December 28, 1994 - CELESTINO M. TABACO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102008 December 28, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO NESCIO

  • G.R. No. 105326 December 28, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORINO PABLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106256 December 28, 1994 - MAYA FARMS EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107574 December 28, 1994 - FEDERICO NUEZ v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109430-43 December 28, 1994 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101507 December 29, 1994 - RAMON T. LOPEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110617 December 29, 1994 - GERUNCIO H. ILAGAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111994 December 29, 1994 - SOTENIA GONO-JAVIER, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93468 December 29, 1994 - NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS v. RUBEN D. TORRES, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1101 December 29, 1994 - ANTONIO S. FABICULANA, SR. v. MANUEL B. GADON, ET AL.