2nd case

1. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. MANOLO VILLANUEVA alias "BOY" VILLANUEVA, accused. G.R. No. 95851 March 1, 1995 1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WITNESSES; TESTIMONIES; CREDIBILITY; UPHELD IN CASE AT BAR WHERE INCONSISTENCIES ARE MINOR AND IMPROPER MOTIVES ARE ABSENT. — A careful review of the transcript of stenographic notes shows that save for minor inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses which even enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of being rehearsed, their testimonies were consistent, in accord with one another, and were given in simple, straightforward manner, mentioning details of the incident that could not have been merely concocted. Thus, their averments among others included the fact that accused was slapped by the victim in front of his friends which caused him extreme embarrassment, leading to a heated argument and escalating into the mauling of the victim. Matter-of-factly, the manner in which the witnesses for the state testified and their narration of events bear the hallmarks of candidness and sincerity. The absence of evidence as to improper motives actuating the principal witnesses for the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motives existed, and that their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit. There was no reason at all for Abigail and Dr. Glorioso to lie and incriminate the accused. More so with Abigail who was then only fifteen (15) years old when she took the witness stand. It has been held that the testimony of a minor of sound mind is likely to be more correct and truthful than that of an older person, so that once established that the former has fully understood the character and nature of an oath, his testimony should be accorded full credence. What is more, the eyewitness account of Abigail conforms with the autopsy findings, making her testimony even more reliable and faithworthy. 2. ID.; ID.; ALIBI AND DENIAL; CANNOT PREVAIL OVER POSITIVE TESTIMONY AND IDENTIFICATION. — In brief, as this Court has repeatedly ruled the alibi and denial of the accused cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses and their clear Identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime. Thus against the strength of the evidence of the prosecution, the arguments of the defense have proved to be unavailing. 3. ID.; ID.; RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WITNESS AND VICTIM, EFFECT THEREOF. — It has long been settled that relationship of the prosecution witness to the victim does not necessarily categorize the former as biased and interested and thus tarnish his testimony. In fact, it is highly doubtful that the father of the victim would aid in the prosecution of the accused simply because he disliked the latter. For sure, he would like to send the real killer of his daughter to Jail, and not just anyone whom he despised. Hence, there is no reason why Isidro’s testimony should not be believed. 4. ID.; ID.; ABSENCE OF EXTERNAL INJURIES IN CASE AT BAR, EFFECT THEREOF. — The contention of the accused that the deceased should have suffered more contusions, and not merely on the "left cheek including the lateral aspect of the eye," considering the numerous blows she supposedly received from him as narrated by witness Abigail, is ungrounded. We have repeatedly said that absence of external injuries does not rule out the possibility that a blow had in fact been administered by the offender. 5. ID.; ID.; WITNESSES; CREDIBILITY; NOT IMPAIRED BY DELAY IN DIVULGING THE NAME OF ACCUSED. — It has been repeatedly held that delay in divulging the name of the perpetrator of a crime, if sufficiently explained, does not impair the credibility of the witness and his testimony nor destroy its probative value. And, the failure of a witness to report at once to the police authorities the crime he had witnessed cannot be taken against him for it is not uncommon for a witness to a crime to show some reluctance about getting involved in a criminal case. It has become judicial knowledge that prosecution witnesses are, more often than not, afraid to testify. This was manifested by the prosecutor in the instant case. Hence, in one case, we said that fear of reprisal is a valid excuse for the momentary silence of prosecution witnesses. 6. CRIMINAL LAW; PARRICIDE WITH UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION; CRIME COMMITTED IN CASE AT BAR. — We affirm the conclusion of the trial court that accused Manolo Villanueva is guilty of parricide with unintentional abortion, for a husband who with violence kills his pregnant wife, occasioning the death of the fetus, is guilty of parricide with unintentional abortion. 7. ID.; ID.; ART. 48 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE APPLIED; PROPER PENALTY THEREOF. — Applying Art. 48 of The Revised Penal Code which in part provides that" [w]hen a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. . . the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period," accused should be sentenced to death, the maximum period of the penalty for parricide which is the more serious crime. However, in view of Sec. 19, par. (1), Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution, which proscribes the imposition of the death penalty, and the inapplicability of R.A. 7659 which restores the death penalty, considering that the act charged was committed prior to the effectivity of said statute, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, which is the proper penalty as prescribed by The Revised Penal Code and not life imprisonment as erroneously imposed by the trial court. Time and again this Court has said that reclusion perpetua is not the same as life imprisonment. The former entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years

after which the convict becomes eligible for parole, and carries with it accessory penalties. The latter does not appear to have any definite extent or duration, and does not carry with it any accessory penalties. It was the town fiesta of San Pablo, Laguna. But what could have augured an otherwise festive atmosphere was preempted by the discovery of the lifeless body of a barrio lass sprawled on the cold cement floor of their conjugal home. Blood was oozing out of her mouth. She was six months pregnant. The suspected assailant was her husband who allegedly beat her to death after she slapped him earlier in front of his friends. Charged with and convicted of parricide with unintentional abortion MANOLO VILLANUEVA also known as "Boy" Villanueva is now before us still professing innocence. He claims that he was watching a live concert when his wife, Nora Magpantay, 19, committed suicide by taking sodium cyanide. She was supposedly burdened with family problems and wanted to follow the footsteps of her sister who had earlier taken her life. But the evidence shows otherwise. Isidro Magpantay, father of Nora, testified that on 14 January 1989, at around five or six o'clock in the afternoon, he went to the house of his daughter where she and Manolo were engaged in a heated argument. Manolo was drunk. After seeing his son-in-law slap his daughter, Isidro felt bad and left. 1 The following morning, at around five o'clock, Isidro was informed by Manolo's parents that Nora had poisoned herself. 2 Forthwith, Isidro went to the hospital to look into the-medical records of his daughter. But failing to find any, he proceeded to the funeral parlor where he saw his lifeless daughter with contusions on the right cheek, breast, abdomen and at the back of her left ear. Her mouth was swollen. Her forearms were raised; he straightened them. 3 To augment the testimony of Isidro and to refute altogether the alibi of the accused, 15-year old Abigail Bandoy narrated that on 14 January 1989, at around seven-thirty in the evening, while in the house of Manolo and Nora, she witnessed the accused mauling Nora for about fifteen (15) minutes, striking Nora several times in the stomach below her left breast and in different parts of her body over Nora's incessant pleas "[t]ama na Boy." But Manolo would not stop until Nora fell unconscious on the cement floor. Then Manolo left. After making sure he had already gone Abigail went home leaving Nora behind. 4 Dr. Nida Glorioso, City Medical Officer, recounted that on 15 January 1989, at around nine-fifteen in the morning, she examined the cadaver of Nora and found a "contusion on the left cheek including the lateral aspect of the eye" 5 which could have been caused by a clenched fist, a kick, a piece of wood, a broken bottle or any hard object. 6 She also noticed a "bloody mucoid discharge com(ing) out from her mouth." 7 She then proceeded to open her abdomen to determine the presence of poison as it was alleged by the victim's husband that his wife had poisoned herself. The abdomen of the victim however failed to emit the characteristic odor of a chemical poison, negating the allegation that the victim had poisoned herself. Nevertheless, to completely rule out poisoning as the cause of death the victim's stomach and intestines were sent to the PC Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City, for a "chemical analysis." 8 Capt. Luena E. Layador of he PC Crime Laboratory disclosed that "[t]oxicological examination conducted on the above-mentioned specimen gave NEGATIVE result to the tests for common metallic, non-metallic, volatile and non-volatile poisons, cyanides, organic phosphates, organic chlorides." 9 Thus, Dr. Glorioso concluded that "[i]n view of the negative result of the toxicological examination from the P.C. Crime Lab., Camp Crame, Q.C., . . . and considering the contusio-ecchymosis, cheek, lateral aspect of eye, left, the CAUSE OF DEATH is SHOCK DUE TO CEREBRAL CONCUSSION secondary to a severe blow on the head. 10 Manolo Villanueva however has a different tale. He averred that on 14 January 1989, at around sixthirty in the evening, he went home to change his clothes since he was going to watch the concert of singer Randy Santiago at Canossa College in San Pablo City later that evening. As he was about to leave their house, his wife tried to stop him. His mother who saw them even reprimanded him. 11 Nevertheless, at around seven-thirty, he left the house. 12 He returned at around two-thirty the following morning. After knocking at the door, calling out to his wife but failing to get a response for about thirty minutes, he forcibly opened the door only to find his wife lying prostrate on the floor of their living room. He then noticed the bottle of sodium cyanide, which he was using for poisoning rats, already empty. 13 On cross-examination, Manolo admitted that on 14 January 1989 he was slapped by his wife in front of his friends which resulted in a little misunderstanding ("tampuhan"). Although embarrassed, according to him, he nonetheless did not get angry. He merely ushered his wife back to their house and then left again. 14 Sherwin Isleta, 17, took the witness stand for the defense. His house is adjacent to the conjugal home of Manolo and Nora with only a party wall separating the two houses. He said that on 14 January 1989 at around eight o'clock in the evening, he saw Nora sitting near the gate in front of their house, apparently waiting for someone. 15 That was the last time he saw her. At around three

o'clock the following morning he was awakened by the loud knock on the neighbor's door and repeated calls for Nora. A little later he heard Manolo screaming, "Nora, Nora, why did you do this? 16 In its Decision of 27 April 1990 the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Br. 31, 17 ruled — A close scrutiny of the evidence discloses that: on January 14, 1989, between 5:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. at their house, accused and his wife, Nora, quarreled with the former slapping the latter in the presence of Isidro Magpantay who, after half an hour stay thereat, left them; accused also left and went to his hangout; at 6:30 P.M.; accused returned and in the presence of his friends, was slapped by his wife; between 7:30 P.M. and 8:00 P.M., accused mauled his wife by giving her several fist blows, thereby causing her to fall and hit her head on the cemented floor; also between the same period of time, accused left their house and attended a concert with his friend, Nick Dalisay, from 9:00 P.M. up to 2:00 A.M. of the following day; at 3:00 A.M. of January 15, 1989, accused found the lifeless body of his wife on the cemented floor in the bedroom of their house; at 9:15 A.M., Dr. Glorioso conducted an autopsy on the cadaver and found contusions on the different parts of the body notably, on the left cheek and eye; and, deceased could have died between 9:00 P.M. of January 14, 1989 and 12:00 A.M. of January 15, 1989 (citations omitted). 18 and held that the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused is guilty of parricide with unintentional abortion. The accused was initially sentenced to suffer the death penalty which is the penalty for parricide, the more serious crime, applied in its maximum period. But since the death penalty could not at that time be imposed under the 1987 Constitution, the penalty for parricide under Art. 246, The Revised Penal Code, was reclusion perpetua, the penalty next lower to death. However, instead of imposing reclusion perpetua the trial court sentenced the accused to suffer life imprisonment. 19 A careful review of the transcript of stenographic notes shows that save for minor inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses which even enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of being rehearsed, their testimonies were consistent, in accord with one another, and were given in simple, straightforward manner, mentioning details of the incident that could not have been merely concocted. Thus, their averments among others included the fact that accused was slapped by the victim in front of his friends which caused him extreme embarrassment, leading to a heated argument and escalating into the mauling of the victim. Matter-of-factly, the manner in which the witnesses for the state testified and their narration of events bear the hallmarks of candidness and sincerity. And neither do we find material discrepancies or substantial inconsistencies in their testimonies which may engender serious doubt on their reliability and veracity. Except for witness Isidro Magpantay to whom bias is imputed by reason of his being the father of the victim who allegedly despised accused as his son-in-law, there appears to be no motive on the part of Abigail and Dr. Glorioso to testify falsely. The absence of evidence as to improper motives actuating the principal witnesses for the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motives existed, and that their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit. 20 There was no reason at all for Abigail and Dr. Glorioso to lie and incriminate the accused. More so with Abigail who was then only fifteen (15) years old when she took the witness stand. It has been held that the testimony of a minor of sound mind is likely to be more correct and truthful than that of an older person, so that once established that the former has fully understood the character and nature of an oath, his testimony should be accorded full credence. 21 What is more, the eyewitness account of Abigail conforms with the autopsy findings, making her testimony even more reliable and faithworthy. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to which the lower court has given full faith lead to a fair and reasonable inference that the accused was indeed responsible for the death of the victim. Isidro Magpantay narrated that he witnessed the misunderstanding between his daughter and her husband who was then reeking with liquor, which the latter even admitted on cross-examination. Abigail Bandoy was an eyewitness to the altercation between the spouses which led to the fatal mauling of the victim. And Dr. Nida Glorioso, after examining the deceased and taking into consideration the result of the tests, concluded that the cause of death was "shock due to cerebral concussion secondary to a severe blow on the head," contrary to the submission of the accused that his wife had poisoned herself. Certainly, the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain leading to a logical conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of others, perpetrated the crime. In brief, as this Court has repeatedly ruled, the alibi and denial of the accused cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses and their clear identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime. 22 Thus, against the strength of the evidence of the prosecution, the arguments of the defense have proved to be unavailing. The submission of the accused that the trial court erred in lending credence to the testimony of the father of the deceased who has shown his dislike and bias against the former even before the death of Nora is unsustainable. Isidro Magpantay merely narrated that, the last time he saw his daughter alive was in the afternoon before she died when she and her husband were quarreling. While he may have previously manifested his enmity towards the accused, Isidro only testified that he saw his

daughter and the accused in a heated altercation, which per se is not incriminatory, and which the accused himself even admitted, downplaying it as a mere "tampuhan." It has long been settled that relationship of the prosecution witness to the victim does not necessarily categorize him as biased and interested and thus tarnish his testimony. 23 In fact, it is highly doubtful that Isidro would aid in the prosecution of the accused simply because he disliked the latter. For sure, he would like to send the real killer of his daughter to jail, and not just anyone whom he despised. Hence, there is no reason why Isidro's testimony should not be believed. The contention of the accused that the deceased should have suffered more contusions, and not merely on the "left cheek including the lateral aspect of the eye," considering the numerous blows she supposedly received from him as narrated by witness Abigail, is ungrounded. We have repeatedly said that absence of external injuries does not rule out the possibility that a blow had in fact been administered by the offender. 24 The proposition of counsel of the accused that the toxicological examination performed by Dr. Glorioso was very limited," 25 and that her conclusions were merely based on her opinion and not on medical findings is likewise untenable. 26 In fact, we find this amusing coming as it does from counsel who has neither presented his qualifications nor cited any medical authority in forming such self-serving conclusions. We thus sustain the opinion of Dr. Glorioso who certainly appears to be more competent in the field of medicine than counsel who simply proffered speculations that have remained unsubstantiated. Thus, even the assertion of the accused that his wife took sodium cyanide is very doubtful, not only because her toxicological examination yielded negative result for the presence of poison, but also because the pieces of broken bottle which supposedly contained the poison were also found negative for "volatile, non-volatile and metallic poisons." 27 The defense, contending that "the prosecution should not have been allowed to spring a surprise," then seeks to nullify the account of rebuttal witness Abigail Bandoy that the accused mauled the victim, and binds the prosecution to its earlier statements that the rebuttal witness will testify only for the purpose of rebutting the alibi of the accused that he attended the concert of Randy Santiago. We are not persuaded. The Court finds it difficult to believe that the defense was surprised by the testimony of witness Abigail considering that it was able to subject her to a grueling and rigorous cross-examination, ceaselessly trying to elicit contradictory statements from her. If indeed the defense was caught flat-footed, as it now makes it appear, then it could not have extensively crossexamined the 15-year old witness. Suffice it to state that what Abigail said she saw and where she was at the time of the incident are the natural and logical allegations to show that "the accused was not in the Randy Santiago show," 28 which is the essence of the testimony of the rebuttal witness, as stated by the prosecutor, to refute the denial of the accused. The accused also takes to task the testimony of Abigail because of her delay in reporting the incident. She witnessed the mauling of the victim on 14 January 1989. Yet, she executed an affidavit only on 23 January 1990, or after more than one year. Abigail however explains that she was not aware that the victim had died as a result of the mauling and that a case was filed against the accused since after the mauling she left for Manila to continue her schooling. Hence, it was only sometime in November 1989 when she learned that Nora was dead, and only on 23 January 1990 that a case was filed against the accused. We thus accept the elucidation of Abigail. She has satisfactorily shown that she was indeed in Manila to continue her studies, and was not well-posted on developments in the province. It was only some ten (10) months later when she returned to San Pablo that she learned of Nora's death. It has been repeatedly held that delay in divulging the name of the perpetrator of a crime, if sufficiently explained, does not impair the credibility of the witness and his testimony nor destroy its probative value. 29 And, the failure of a witness to report at once to the police authorities the crime he had witnessed cannot be taken against him for it is not uncommon for a witness to a crime to show some reluctance about getting involved in a criminal case. 30 It has become judicial knowledge that prosecution witnesses are, more often than not, afraid to testify. This was manifested by the prosecutor in the instant case. Hence, in one case, 31 we said that fear of reprisal is a valid excuse for the momentary silence of prosecution witnesses. Thus the testimony of defense witness Sherwin Isleta that he saw Nora at around eight o'clock in the evening before she was found dead has lost its relevance as it has not shown that the accused was precluded from having mauled the victim and causing her eventual death. In fine, we uphold the pronouncement of the trial court that "[t]he defense of alibi raised by the accused showing that he was at the Canossa College in San Pablo City (watching the concert of singer Randy Santiago) with a friend, Nick Dalisay, who was not even presented in Court, at the time when his wife could have allegedly died even if true is still of no moment as his act (mauling) committed prior thereto is the one in issue." 32

Consequently, we affirm the conclusion of the trial court that accused Manolo Villanueva is guilty of parricide with unintentional abortion, for a husband who with violence kills his pregnant wife, occasioning the death of the fetus, is guilty of parricide with unintentional abortion. 33 Applying Art. 48 of The Revised Penal Code which in part provides that "[w]hen a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies . . . the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period," accused should be sentenced to death, the maximum period of the penalty for parricide which is the more serious crime. 34 However, in view of Sec. 19, par. (1), Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution, which proscribes the imposition of the death penalty, and the inapplicability of R.A. 7659 which restores the death penalty, considering that the act charged was committed prior to the effectivity of said statute, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, which is the proper penalty as prescribed by The Revised Penal Code, and not life imprisonment as erroneously imposed by the trial court. Time and again this Court has said that reclusion perpetua is not the same as life imprisonment. The former entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after which the convict becomes eligible for parole, and carries with it accessory penalties. 35 WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from finding accused MANOLO VILLANUEVA also known as "BOY" VILLANUEVA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the penalty of life imprisonment should instead be reclusion perpetua, and consistent with existing jurisprudence, the civil indemnity for the death of the victim and the award for moral damages should be as they are increased to P50,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively, while the actual damages and costs of P3,000.00 remain. 2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VIVENCIO SABELLANO and WESLY SAPELLANO 1991-06-05 | G.R. Nos. 93932-33 FACTS: In Criminal Case No. 65155, On February 6, 1985, Walderita Abrogar was in her house at 536 Calbayog Street, Mandaluyong watching a wake across the street. A game had then been in progress for about two (2) hours between one Julio Catayong and Wesly. Julio cursed 'putang inamo' and delivered a fist blow to Wesly. Seeing the trouble erupt, Salvador pulled out a knife and advanced towards Wesly. Vivencio Sabellano, at the same time, had also approached and held up Salvador preventing the latter from attacking Wesly. As this occurred, Wesly went home and after getting hold of a knife, rushed back and stabbed Salvador twice. Almar, who was then a mere three (3) armlengths (sic) away watching. Salvador asked Almar to fetch a taxi to which the latter obliged. Wesly confronted Almar and told him not to be involved. Almar ran to the house and hid. The deceased, Benito Abrogar, was at that time fixing the toilet. Hearing the commotion, he went out holding a bolo. He was met by Vivencio, Mayoling, Wesly and Jaime who struck him with a bareta. Mayoling and Wesly mauled Benito while Vivencio delivered a stab to the back with a 29" knife. He was then picked-up by his wife who, along with other relatives, took him to Rizal Provincial Hospital and confined for ten (10) days.” In Criminal Case No. 67688, On March 9, 1986 at 3:45 a.m. met the group of Vivencio, Wesly, Jimmy and John Doe at a grocery store. Further down the street, Gertrudes noticed that two (2) joggers. One of the joggers, Wesly, grabbed Walderita with his left arm around her neck. On the other hand, Vivencio, embraced Benito and stabbed the latter on the right breast. Jaime and John Doe stabbed Benito in the abdomen. Wesly released Walderita and stabbed Benito in the back. Walderita tried to help Benito for home but he died shortly. Gertrudes was only an arm-length away and was able to recognize the assailants. RTC decide in Case No. 6515 and Case No. 67688 against Vivencio Sabellano as “Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt” for Homicide and Wesly Sabellano for Murder respectively. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. ISSUE: WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING MUCH CREDENCE TO THE CLEARLY BIASED, HIGHLY IMPROBABLE, CONTRADICTORY AND CONFLICTING TESTIMONIES OF WALDERITA ABROGAR. RULING: The SC ruled that although the records do not show any direct proof showing that the accused-appellant Wesly Sabellano together with his three other companions agreed to inflict fatal wounds on the person of the deceased, there is overwhelming evidence from the elaborate testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that Benito's attackers were at the time and place of the stabbing incident that led to the death of the said victim, Benito Abrogar, and that all of them acted in consonance with a common design so that the guilt of one becomes the guilt of all. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the trial court's decision dated June 6, 1990 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION of increasing the amount of indemnity.

3. G.R. No. 100513 June 13, 1997 SEVERINO ANTONIO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. G.R. No. 111559 June 13, 1997 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLITO ANTONIO, accused-appellant.

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.: These cases have been consolidated in a Resolution 1 by this Court dated September 19, 1994 to avoid possible conflicting decisions that may arise as they involve the same facts and incidents. G.R. No. 100513 is a petition for review of the decision 2 of the Court of Appeals 3 promulgated on April 30, 1991 in CA-G.R. CR No. 07956, affirming with slight modifications the decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Branch 72, finding the petitioner Severino Antonio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. On the other hand, G.R. No. 111559 is an appeal from the decision 5 dated December 11, 1992, of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Branch 74, in Criminal Case No. 6741-MN, finding also the accusedappellant Carlito Antonio y Linao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder by direct participation. 6 Antecedent facts follow: On July 25, 1988, an Information 7 was filed against both Severino Antonio and Carlito Antonio, blood brothers, charging them with the crime of murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, 8 before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Branch 72, in Criminal Case No. 6741-MN, committed as follows: That on or about January 20, 1988, in the Municipality of Navotas, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, and confederating together with one (1) alias Oryo and one (1) John Doe, whose true named (sic) and whereabouts are still unknown and who are still at large, mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, armed with gun, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with the said firearm one GONZALO GUTIERREZ, thereby inflicting upon the victim gunshot wounds at the back and head, which directly caused his death. Subsequently, a warrant of arrest was issued against both accused, but only Severino Antonio was arrested on August 18, 1988 and subsequently tried. At that time, his co-accused Carlito Antonio, an overseas contract worker, was abroad. Hence, the arrest warrant could not be served against him and trial had to proceed without his participation. Petitioner Severino Antonio pleaded not guilty and thereafter trial proceeded as to him. On September 18, 1989, the trial court rendered judgment finding Severino Antonio guilty of murder, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Severino Antonio GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, defined and penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code. There being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, and applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, said accused is hereby sentenced to a prison term ranging from TWELVE (12) YEARS of prison mayor, as minimum, to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS, and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal, as maximum, together with all the accessory penalties thereof. He is also ordered to pay the heirs of GONZALO GUTIERREZ the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00) PESOS as indemnification for the latter's death. Costs against the accused. SO ORDERED. 9

From this Decision, 10 petitioner Severino Antonio appealed to the Court of Appeals. 11 On April 30, 1991, the appellate court affirmed the aforesaid decision 12 of the court a quo with slight modifications, appreciating the presence of conspiracy and treachery, but not the circumstance of evident premeditation. The decretal portion of said decision states: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, finding appellant Severino Antonio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery. The imposable penalty is from reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, (People vs. Melgar, 137 SCRA 718), since death penalty, which was prescribed in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, has already been abolished by the 1987 Constitution (People vs. Guevarra, 155 SCRA 327, 335). There being no other modifying circumstances attending the commission of the crime, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended, appellant Severino Antonio is sentenced to the penalty of, from fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Gonzalo Gutierrez the sum of P50,000.00 (People vs. Sison, G.R. No. 86453, September 14, 1990) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. With this modification, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects. IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Petitioner Severino Antonio moved to have the decision reconsidered, but the same was denied in a Resolution 14 dated June 20, 1991; hence, he filed the instant petition for review on certiorari 15 with this Court. Before us, petitioner pleads for his acquittal by raising the following errors: I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN IGNORING THE VERY CONVINCING REAL EVIDENCE OF THE GUNSHOT WOUNDS BELYING THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION'S "EYEWITNESSES." II THE COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE STORIES OF THESE "EYEWITNESSES" IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS CASE. III IT WAS ALSO AN ERROR FOR THE RESPONDENT COURT TO SACRIFICE TRUTH FOR A DUBIOUS TECHNICALITY AND IGNORING THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE IN THE ONGOING TRIAL OF CO-ACCUSED CARLITO ANTONIO. IV THE COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE ERRED IN STATING "FINDINGS OF FACTS" WITHOUT STATING FROM WHICH THEY ARE BASED; AS INDEED IT MADE "FINDINGS OF FACTS" NOT SUPPORTED BY ANYTHING ON RECORD. 16 Carlito Antonio was in turn arrested on June 23, 1990 pursuant to an alias warrant of arrest dated June 18, 1990. He was tried under the same Information, 17 by the lower court. When arraigned, accused-appellant Carlito Antonio, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty. After the prosecution rested its case, the appellant filed a Demurrer to Evidence dated April 16, 1991, but the same was denied by the trial court in its Order 18 dated July 16, 1991. After trial, the court a quo rendered its decision dated December 11, 1992, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, and finding the accused, CARLITO ANTONIO y LINAO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder by direct participation, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased the amount of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos Philippine Currency. With costs of suit against the accused.

SO ORDERED.

19

Aggrieved by the trial court's decision,

20

accused-appellant Carlito Antonio appealed his case to us.

In his appellant's brief, the herein appellant raises the following assignment of errors: I THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO GIVE IMPORTANCE TO THE GUNSHOT WOUNDS. II IT LIKEWISE ERRED IN EXCUSING THE ADMITTED CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES OF THE PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES AS "TRIVIAL, INSIGNIFICANT AND UNIMPORTANT. III THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE. IV NO SUFFICIENT MOTIVE FOR THE KILLING WAS SHOWN.

21

On the other hand, the Solicitor General maintains that the trial court's decision 22 convicting accused-appellant Carlito Antonio should be affirmed and further prays that the civil indemnity awarded by the court a quo should be increased to P50,000.00 from the award of P30,000.00. 23 The undisputed facts involving the charge of murder against both accused, as culled from the records 24 of both the trial court and appellate 25 court follows: The accused CARLITO ANTONIO and SEVERINO ANTONIO are the brothers-in-law of the victim, Gonzalo Gutierrez, the latter being the husband of accused' elder sister, Mrs. Priscilla Antonio-Gutierrez . . . The victim and his family together with Carlito and his family, Severino, Areng, Betty and Erly lived in separate houses situated in the Antonio compound which is owned by the mother of the Antonios. At about 7:00 o'clock in the evening of July 20, 1988, Jaime Robles, a candidate for councilor but lost, was in Barangay Wawa, Tangos, Navotas, Metro Manila, on a house to house visit to thank people or voters who supported him in the local election. He was then conversing with Luis Pantaleon and Jonathan Narciso. On the other hand, Reynaldo Gutierrez was also there on Santos Street, and was talking to one Sony Sengco, when his father Gonzalo Gutierrez arrived in the place on his way to their residence nearby. Reynaldo followed his father. Suddenly Carlito Antonio, . . . appeared from behind of the latter, and at close range fired at him in the back. When Gonzalo stumbled after walking a few steps, he was picked up by appellant Severino Antonio, brother of Carlito Antonio, and one Oryo, held him by the two arms and dragged him across the street near the gate of the Abalos compound. Oryo held a knife. Both Severino Antonio and Oryo forced Gonzalo to kneel down, and while the latter was in that position, Carlito Antonio, grabbing Gonzalo's head by the hair, poked a pistol on his left temple, Gonzalo pleaded for forgiveness and that he be brought to the hospital. It appears that Gonzalo Gutierrez was claiming ownership of the compound which belonged to the mother of Gonzalo's wife and the Antonio brothers; Gonzalo was saying that he was the master or boss "naghari-harian" of the place, which the Antonio brothers strongly resented. To the plea of Gonzalo, Carlito replied that he must die now, and fired his gun at the head of Gonzalo. Reynaldo could not do anything to protect his father because he was afraid, and another one, a companion, was holding a gun warning him not to move or else he would also be killed. All that he could say was a plea to stop the shooting; "tama na, tama na". Still not satisfied, Carlito fired his gun, hitting Gonzalo on the neck. All the four (4) assailants filed from the scene. Gonzalo was brought by Reynaldo to the house, together with his brother Camilo Gutierrez, who arrived, while Robles went to the Office of the Barangay to seek the assistance of the police, but there was no officer around, so he went home. Robles' auntie Sonia arrived, and informed Robles that Gonzalo (Along) was killed. Robles told her that he already knew about it and suggested that he already be brought to the funeral parlor.

The case was investigated by the police of Navotas. One of the investigators was Cpl. Wilfredo Mendoza. The latter was informed by Reynaldo Gutierrez that one of the killers of his father was appellant Severino Antonio. Not knowing how to file the case, Reynaldo did not go to the police headquarters not until April 22, 1988, when he gave his written statement to PFC. Manolo Rodriguez narrating how his father, Gonzalo, was shot and killed by Carlito Antonio, appellant Severino Antonio, one Oryo and still another person, and how the four hatched the plan at about noontime at the seashore which he (Reynaldo) overheard when he passed by. An autopsy was performed by Dr. Benjamin Dizon, Municipal Health Officer of Navotas. His examination showed that the cause of death of Gonzalo Gutierrez was multiple gunshot wounds on the head, neck and back. In the course of his post-mortem examination, he prepared a human sketch, where he depicted and indicated that he found bullet wounds on the head, the point of entry on the left temple and the point of exit was on the forehead or "tuktok"; bullet wounds on the back of the neck below the right ear as the point of entry and wound on the back below the left armpit as point of exit; and bullet wound on the back, on the left side near the waistline as the point of entry, and wound on the front left side below the ribs as the point of exit . . . For the defense, Carlito Antonio averred that on the day the incident happened, he left his house at around 10:00 a.m. to go to the Magsaysay Lines at T.M. Kalaw St., Manila, in connection with his job application as a seaman. He stayed in that office until 4:00 p.m. of that day. After that, he proceeded to his aunt Clarita Guevarra and arrived there at 5:30 p.m. There he saw a child of her cousin named Vener. He stayed there up to 10:00 p.m. as he was exchanging stories with her aunt. The accused-appellant also presented two (2) witnesses in the person of Mrs. Filomena Antonio Besido and Mrs. Clarita Guevarra which substantially corroborated his testimony. 26 The Court, after a thorough evaluation and painstaking review of the records of these cases, conformably with the existing laws and jurisprudence on the matter, is of the firm position that the herein petition lacks merit. As the first and second assigned errors of the brothers Antonio in these consolidated eases are identical, we shall discuss them jointly. Both the herein petitioner Severino Antonio and accused-appellant Carlito Antonio contend that the testimonies of the prosecution's two principal witnesses, Reynaldo Gutierrez and Jaime Robles, on the nature and position of the gunshot wounds sustained by the victim, Gonzalo Gutierrez, and how these were inflicted, do not correspond with, and are belied by, the physical evidence as depicted in the testimony of Navotas Municipal Health Officer, Dr. Benjamin Dizon, the Government doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination of the victim. They both assail the trial court for giving more weight to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses despite certain errors, inconsistencies and contradictions in their declarations. In particular, they assert the following: Gunshot wounds "B-1" and "B-2" do not tally with the "eyewitness" account. The slug in "B-1" went inside the back portion of the head and exited at the front while the assailant was at the left side of the victim who were both standing. But the eyewitnesses testified that Gonzalo who was kneeling then was pleading to Carlito, Carlito was holding his hair, answered cruelly "kailangang mamatay ka", then pulled the trigger as the gun was pointed at his temple. Gunshot "B-2" had its slug entering at the lower behind at the right ear and exiting at the right area with the assailant in a much higher level. The "eyewitnesses" account had the shot fired immediately after the shot at the temple as the victim's head hang down. They evidently again mistook the point of entry and exit from one another. Note that the doctor denied the possibility that Gonzalo was in a kneeling position even as the Fiscal led him to answer in such a manner. 27 After carefully examining the records of these cases, we find the above-quoted allegations to be untenable. The court sees no reason to set aside the findings of fact of the trial court, which are supported by the testimony of witnesses who have no reason whatsoever to testify falsely against the accused-brothers. A witness' testimony ought to be entitled to great weight when his accusing words are directed against a close relative. 28 It goes beyond logic and normal human experience for a kinsman to prosecute a blood relative. He risks the ire and reprisal of other relatives, if he were not guided by truth and motivated by a quest for justice. Time and again, we have ruled in a catena of authorities that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses should not be disturbed because the trial judge is in a better position to rule on questions of fact, he having observed the deportment of the witnesses and their manner of testifying during the trial, 29 except when it appears in the record that the trial court had overlooked, ignored, or disregarded some fact

or circumstance of weight or significance that, if considered, would alter the result. 30 The petitioner and accused-appellant failed to demonstrate that their case falls under such an exception. Thus, as elucidated by the court a quo: The medico-legal findings on the cause of death of the victim, Gonzalo Gutierrez confirms the eye witnesses accounts of the incident. Dr. Benjamin Dizon who autopsied the remains of the deceased confirmed that three (3) shots were fired at the victim, with his medical finding that, the victim sustained three (3) bullet wounds, to wit: a) bullet wounds on the head, the point of entry on the left temple and the point of exit on the forehead "Tuktok"; b) bullet wounds on the back of the neck below the right ear as the point of entry, and wound on the back below the armpit as the point of exit; c) bullet wound on the back, on the left side near the waistline as the point of entry, and the wound on the front side below the ribs as point of exit. The finding of the doctor as to the location of the points of entry and exit of the bullet wounds sustained by the victim, is consistent and conformable with the eye witnesses testimony. To the mind of the Court, any variance thereof as to the exact location and nature of the wounds would be inconsequential and trivial matters and would not affect the credibility of the witnesses. It is common experience that the human eye and mind could not perceive with mechanical precision and with exactitude all the details of on incident. Especially in this case when a murder was committed and the eyewitnesses to the gruesome killing are the close relatives of the victim and the assailants. . . . In no occasion or instance that this Court entertains doubt as to the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses. It always adheres to the legal principle or doctrine that, the testimony itself must not only be credible but also the source thereof. . . . 31 As to the other alleged contradictions and inconsistencies regarding the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses, we find that they relate only to trivial, insignificant and unimportant matters and consequently do not materially impair or impugn the very testimony of said witnesses. Accordingly, it has been held by this Court in the case of People vs. Daen, Jr. 32 that, "a witness is not expected to remember an occurrence with perfect recollection down to insignificant and minute details." Errorless testimonies cannot be expected especially when a witness is recounting details of a harrowing experience 33 and as long as the mass of testimony jibes on material points, the slight clashing statements dilute neither the witnesses' credibility nor the veracity of their testimony. Such inconsistencies on minor details would even enhance credibility as these discrepancies indicate that the responses are honest and unrehearsed. 34 We find that the positive testimony of eyewitnesses, like Gutierrez and Robles, has a greater probative value than the hypothetical statements made by a witness who was not even present at the locus criminis, like Dr. Dizon. The petitioner and accused-appellant further contend that the delay in reporting the crime to the police was inexcusable and unreasonable and that the reasons given therefor are mere conjectures and suppositions not supported by evidence on record. Therefore, they allege that the delay in reporting the crime to the police authorities casts doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. To this contention, we find no merit. The delay on the part of eyewitnesses Reynaldo Gutierrez and Jaime Robles, assuming there was any, was not unreasonable. It is a well-established rule needing minimal discussion that delay or vacillation in reporting a crime, if sufficiently explained, does not impair the credibility of witnesses and their testimony nor destroy its probative value. 35 Delay of a witness in revealing to the authorities what he knows about a crime does not render his testimony false, for the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case. 36 And, the natural reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information to the police authorities in criminal cases is consistent with normal behavior and is a matter of judicial notice. 37 In the case at bench, Reynaldo Gutierrez sufficiently accounted for the delay in reporting the crime to the police, while Jaime Robles explained the reason for his reluctance to be involved in the case. The Court of Appeals ruled on the matter in this manner: It would appear that, out of sheer ignorance or lack of sufficient education, and his being in a state of helplessness, witness Reynaldo Gutierrez was not able to go to the police headquarters and give his statement not until much later.

However, when Cpl. Wilfredo Mendoza was investigating the case, he was already informed by Reynaldo that one of the killers of his father was appellant Severino. . . . There can be no doubt as to the presence of Reynaldo Gutierrez at the scene of the killing to enable him to witness the shooting of his father, as the same is confirmed by the other present witness Jaime Robles who was also present at the scene of the incident. As a matter of fact, witness Reynaldo was prevented from extending any help to his beleaguered father, as one of the companions of appellant held him at bay by poking a gun at him. And as soon as the killers left, Reynaldo went to approach his father and brought him to their home. If Reynaldo was not there to witness the incident, appellant could have easily checked with Sony Sengco, with whom witness was talking immediately before his father was shot, and appellant could have made him as his witness to dispute the witness' claim that he was there after the scene of the shooting. As to the witness Jaime Robles, it would appear that he did not want to be involved as he simply went to the barangay office to look for a policeman, and having failed to find one he simply went home. It appears that Robles is related to both the family of appellant and the deceased. He is the cousin of the Antonios by his father side; he is also the cousin of the deceased by his mother side. He was terribly depressed and saddened about the whole affair, since the parties involved are his relatives. Be that as it may, we do not find said witness to be a false one. As we examined the records, he testified in a clear and straight forward manner, responsive and positive, indicating that he is a truthful witness. We find no motive why he should testify falsely against appellant if the truth was that he was not there at the scene and witnessed the commission of the crime. Hence, notwithstanding the fact that he did not come forward and report the incident to the police authorities, like other persons or bystanders who were present and saw the incident and did not also take the trouble to go to the police station, witness Jaime Robles' credibility was not affected thereby. It is well-known that eyewitnesses to killings usually do not want to undergo the trouble and inconvenience of an investigation and of appearing in court, being grilled by lawyers and being exposed to reprisal from the accused (People vs. Medrana, 110 SCRA 130, 141). Initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information about a criminal case and their unwillingness to be involved in criminal investigations are common and do not affect their credibility (People vs. Untalasco, 125 SCRA 159, 170). 38 (Emphasis supplied). As to the assigned error, to wit: The trial court, of course, denied the demurrer. But it did not say there was proof beyond reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt. Neither did it consider the various points raised by the accused against the testimonies of the alleged two "eyewitnesses". The trial court merely stated that there is a prima facie proof the accused, and that the two eyewitnesses "pinpointed to the accused Carlito Antonio as the triggerman." 39 we find the contention to be not well-taken. Judicial action on a motion to dismiss or demurrer to the evidence is left to the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Unless there is a grave abuse thereof, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss may not be disturbed. 40 In the case at bench, the trial court, after hearing the evidence presented by the prosecution, was convinced that said evidence was sufficient to warrant a finding of guilt. In its Order dated July 16, 1991 denying appellant's Demurrer to Evidence filed on April 12, 1991, the trial court stated that: In clear contrast with the case at bar, the prosecution has at least shown prima facie the guilt of the accused, or as frequently stated, the essential element of the crime charged. The uncontroverted facts remain that the deceased Gonzalo Gutierrez was shot three (3) times on the different parts of his body at Navotas, Metro Manila in the 20th day of January 1988 at around 7:00 P.M. The doctor who conducted the autopsy and post mortem examination on the body of the deceased testified that the cause of death was gunshot wounds. That the two (2) witnesses, namely: Reynaldo Gutierrez and Jaime Robles testified that they saw the actual killing and pinpointed to the accused Carlito Antonio as the triggerman. As to the motive of the killing, the Court took note that even the accused admitted that there was existing family feud between the deceased and the accused-brothers, Carlito and Severino Antonio. 41 (Emphasis supplied). Hence, although the trial court did not expressly state in its Order 42 denying appellant's demurrer to evidence that there was "proof beyond reasonable doubt, "such degree of proof was actually existing

and present in the aforesaid Order. The prosecution was successful in proving every fact and circumstance essential to show the guilt of the accused. The court a quo found: (a) the uncontroverted facts remain that the deceased Gonzalo Gutierrez was shot three (3) times on the different parts of the body at Navotas, Metro Manila in the 20th day of January 1988 at around 7:00 P.M.; (b) two (2) witnesses, namely: Reynaldo Gutierrez and Jaime Robles testified that they saw the actual killing and pinpointed the accused Carlito Antonio as the triggerman; and (3) the accused admitted that there was an existing family feud between the deceased and the accused-brothers, Carlito and Severino Antonio. 43 Furthermore, in denying a demurrer to evidence, the court need not state that the prosecution has established "proof beyond reasonable doubt." It is sufficient that words of similar import, such as those stated in this case — "the essential elements of the crime charged," 44 — be present to indicate that there was a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Therefore, the trial court did not commit any error in its Order dated July 16, 1991 denying the appellant's demurrer to evidence for there was sufficient compliance. Going now to the alibi interposed by the accused-appellant, we find the same to be bereft of merit. It is undisputed jurisprudential rule that, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime. 45 This the appellant failed to prove. Moreover, alibi becomes less plausible as a defense when it is mainly established by the accused himself and his immediate relatives and not by credible persons. 46 Besides, positive identification where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial which if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. 47 In the instant case, the herein accused-appellant and petitioner was definitely identified and established as having been in the Antonio compound at about 6:00 P.M. of January 20, 1988 by no less than their elder sister, Priscilla A. Gutierrez. 48 Moreover, Carlito Antonio was positively identified by prosecution witnesses Reynaldo Gutierrez and Jaime Robles as the one who shot and killed, together with co-accused Severino Antonio and a certain Oryo, the victim Gonzalo Gutierrez on January 20, 1988 at Wawa, Navotas, Metro Manila. 49 Thus, the trial court stated: On the other hand, witnesses, Reynaldo Gutierrez and Jaime Robles had positively identified the assailants and their testimonies corroborate each other on material points. Both of them testified that they personally witnessed the killing of Gonzalo Gutierrez by accused, Carlito Antonio and his co-conspirators on the fateful evening of January 20, 1988 in Wawa, Tangos, Navotas, Metro Manila. They positively identified Carlito Antonio as the gunwilder (sic) and narrated in a detailed and straight-forward manner how the latter fired his gun at the back of the victim while he was walking towards his house. Thereafter, Severino and Oryo grasped the hands of the victim, and dragged the latter about four (4) meters away towards the gate of the Ablola family, where they forced the victim to kneel down. Carlito Antonio then grabbed the victim's head by hair and pointed a gun on his left temple and after a few exchange of words squeezed the trigger. After the shot, the victim's head hanged forward "lumungayngay" and at this precise moment Carlito shot again the victim on his neck. 50

Finally, while in his fourth assigned error, accused-appellant Carlito Antonio contends that: Aside from a vague reference to a family dispute (which was uncorroborated and the specifics of which are not stated), there is no clear motive for the killing. With such a brutal, merciless assault, the rage of the assailants must have been great. What brought such anger? What impelled such demonic act? There's no answer from the prosecution's evidence. 51 it is our holding that this argument is without merit, because motive is not essential to convict when there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit. 52 The fact that the witnesses had positively and categorically identified the accused as the malefactors, negatives the need for establishing the motive for the killing of the victim. 53 But, the motive behind the killing of Gonzalo Gutierrez was in fact satisfactorily established by the testimony of prosecution witness Reynaldo Gutierrez when the latter testified that: Q. By the way, do you know any personal misunderstanding exist between your father and your uncles before January 20, 1988?

A. Yes, sir. There was. Q. What was that? A. About our land, sir. Q. You said there was a misunderstanding between your father and the two (2) accused about your land will you please tell this honorable court what is that misunderstanding about the land? A. Because they say that my father wants to act as King in our compound. Q. They complain that your father was acting as a king in your compound, what compound are you referring to? A. The land of my grandmother, sir. Q. You said it was the land of your grandmother, in that compound, who was residing? A. Our house is near the house of my uncles, sir. Q. You said your house is near the house of your uncles, who are these uncles? A. They are Tiyo Caring, Sebing, Areng, Betty and Erly. Q. These Caring and Sebing, are they the same accused Carlito Antonio and Severino Antonio in this case? A. Yes, sir. Q. You stated that it was complained or rather they complained that your father was acting as a King in this compound, who made that complaint that your father is "naghahari-harian." A. My uncle, sir. Q. Who in this particular, among your uncles? A. Carlito Antonio, Sir. Q. You said that the compound where your house and the houses of your uncles situated is owned by your grandmother, whose grandmother you are referring to? A. My grandmother in my mother side, sir.

54

(Emphasis supplied)

Priscilla Gutierrez, another prosecution witness likewise corroborated the above-quoted testimony. We quote relevant portions of her testimony: Q. It is admitted by the defense that you are a sister of the accused, Carlito Antonio and Severino Antonio, now will you please tell the Honorable Court who among the three (3) of you is the eldest? A. I am the one, sir. Q. It is also admitted by the defense that you Carlito Antonio and Severino Antonio live in the same compound? A. Yes, sir. Q. In whose compound do you and accused, Severino and Carlito Antonio live?

A. To our mother, sir. Q. Do you want to tell this Honorable Court that the land on which your houses are erected are owned by your mother? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you and your brothers Severino and Carlito been neighbors in the compound owned by your mother before January 20, 1988? A. It has been a long time, about 20 years now, sir. Q. As neighbors, did your husband get along with your brothers Carlito and Severino? A. Before we were in good terms misunderstanding between them, sir.

but

later

on

we

have

a

Q. What was that misunderstanding between your husband and your brother, Carlito? A. They are claiming that we are occupying a bigger portion of the lot and saying that my husband was and I quote, "NAGHAHARIAN-HARIAN." 55 (Emphasis supplied) As to civil indemnity, we hold that the amount of P30,000.00 awarded by the trial court in Criminal Case No. 6741-MN dated December 11, 1992, 56 to the heirs of the victims should be increased to P50,000.00, in line with present jurisprudence. 57 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review in G.R. No. 100513 is DISMISSED for lack of merit, while the judgment appealed from in G.R. No. 111559, except for the above mentioned modification, is AFFIRMED in all other respects. SO ORDERED. 4. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANSELMO BERONDO JR. G.R. No. 177827, March 30, 2009 Criminal Case Digest / Digested Case Murder to Homicide Facts: At around 11:30 p.m. of February 13, 1999, after joining the Miss Gay competition at New Danao, Sinaysayan, Kitaotao, Bukidnon, Herbert Nietes, Jr. walked home to Puntian, Quezon, Bukidnon. While on the way, he suddenly heard a gunshot from nearby. Feeling afraid, he ran towards the grassy area by the roadside to hide. After about five minutes, he saw BERONDO, Julie Tubigon, and Jesus Sudario, each holding a knife, walk towards the road and take turns in stabbing a person who was already slumped on the ground. He recognized the three as they are his townmates. Thereafter, he ran away from the area and went to Bato-Bato, Sinaysayan, Kitaotao, Bukidnon, where he spent the night. The next day, he learned that the person stabbed was GENARO LAGUNA. He later testified that he did not reveal what he had witnessed to anyone because he was afraid of getting involved. Two years after the incident, Nietes and Tero (another witness) admitted to Dolores, Laguna’s widow, that they had witnessed the crime. Trial proceeded only against accused-appellant BERONDO for murder, because the two other accused remained at-large, where he was convicted. The CA affirmed conviction, but ruled that BERONDO was liable only for homicide. ISSUES: 1. Does the belated reporting of Nietes of what he witnessed defeat his credibility as a witness? 2. Was the CA correct in holding that BERONDO was liable only for homicide? HELD: 1. No. Delay in revealing the identity of the perpetrators of a crime does not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness, especially where sufficient explanation is given.No standard form of behavior can be expected from people who had witnessed a strange or frightful experience. Jurisprudence recognizes that witnesses are naturally reluctant to volunteer information about a criminal case or are unwilling to be involved in criminal investigations because of varied reasons.

Some fear for their lives and that of their family; while others shy away when those involved in the crime are their relatives or townmates. And where there is delay, it is more important to consider the reason for the delay, which must be sufficient or well-grounded, and not the length of delay. Despite the delay in reporting the identities of the malefactors, Nietes testified in a categorical, straightforward, and spontaneous manner, and remained consistent even under grueling crossexamination. Such bears the marks of a credible witness. 2. Yes. The Court finds error in the Trial Court’s finding that the killing of the deceased was committed with abuse of superior strength, because no evidence was presented to prove that the accused purposely took advantage of their numerical superiority. Absent clear and convincing evidence of any qualifying circumstance, conviction should only be for homicide.