People v Relucio

PEOPLE v. RELUCIO 1. This This case case is an appea appeall from from the the judg judgme ment nt of conv convic icti tion on against appellant Rosendo elasco of the crime of murder !" the Circuit Criminal Court. a. Reluc elucio io #ith #ithdr dre# e# his appe appeal al upon upon the $lin $ling g of a motion motion for ne# trial trial !ut pending pending the resolut resolution ion of  said motion% motion% said accused accused !ro&e !ro&e out of the 'ueva Ecija Provincial (ail together #ith t#o other inmates% hence the said order !ecame $nal and e)ecutor" as to him. *. +ppellan +ppellantt #as charged charged #ith murder murder in the court% togethe togetherr #ith ,ederico Relucio% Relucio% alias -Pedring-% -Pedring-% Edri Pineda% ante +riola% +riola% /iguel /iguel Espejo Espejo Padron Padrones. es. alias -Egi- Peter Peter oe and Richard oe for allegedl" &illing 0onalo Talastas. 2. Of the four #itnesse #itnesses s in chief chief presente presented d !" the prosecutio prosecution n onl" t#o% Crispen Angeles and Miguel Padrones,  can !e said to have given incriminator" evidence against appellant.

I33UE4 5O' the t#o prosecution #itnesses should !e impeached.  6E3. 7EL4 FIRST, FIRST, WITH CRISPEN ANGELES 1. The testimoni testimonies es of +ngeles +ngeles during during the direct direct e)aminat e)amination% ion% cros cross s e)ami )amina nati tion on and and his his s#or s#orn n stat statem emen entt have have discrepancies #hich cannot !e reconciled !" the Court. ANGELES’ TESTIMON! On TESTIMON! On the da" in 8uestion% (une *2% 19:1% he met the deceased 0onalo Talastas ;+long< near the entrance to the Capital Theater in Ca!anatuan Cit" at a!out * o=cloc& in the afternoon. 7e invited Talastas to see the movie. The latter said he #as #aitin #aiting g for a #oman #oman.. 5hen 5hen the the #oman #oman named named +mand +manda a arrived% she had a female companion% and the four of them #ent in. +fter a #hile +manda left and did not go !ac& an"more. 3o% +ngeles invited invited Talast Talastas as to leave !ut the latter said he #ould #ait for +manda to return. + little later% ho#ever% he acceded just the same% !ut +ngeles -left ahead of him.+s +ngeles #as going out% he met the accused ,ederico Relucio and another person un&no#n to him going inside the theater. +fter the t#o #ent in% +ngeles heard shots% after #hich he sa# Talastas going out of the theater #ith !lood on his shoulder. ;7e could not sa"

#hether left or right. =+t that moment% he ;+ngeles< #as -in the place place opposite opposite the Capital Capital Theater Theater near the +venu +venue e TheaterTheater;across >urgos 3treet urgos >urgos 3treet near near the +venue Theater #hen he heard shots inside the Capital Theater #here Talastas had returned% as the"

•

•

•

•

•

met ,ederico Relucio #ith a companion% un&no#n to him% #ho #ere going inside% hence% he did not see #ho $red the shots% in the a!ove s#orn statement% he categoricall" stated that upon seeing Relucio% #ho had separated from his t#o armed companions and gone inside% he ;+ngeles< #ent !ac& inside the theater and actuall" sa# Relucio $ring at 0onalo and the latter retaliating #ith his o#n gun. In court% he said that #hen Talastas came out of the theater alread" #ounded and running to#ards the east% the t#o companions of Relucio% referring to elasco and Padrones% chased Talastas% #ith Relucio riding in a  jeep and Padrones going on foot. In court% +ngeles= account of the participation of appellant in the shooting of Talastas #as vague and inconclusiveA in his statement% E)hi!it 1:% nothing points de$nitel" and speci$call" to appellant as having $red an" shot at allA importantl" the one clearl" and categoricall" referred to as having shot Talastas is Egi or Padrones. It results% therefore% that at least insofar as herein appellant elasco is concerned% the testimon" of +ngeles has !een completel" impeached or discredited. It is a !asic postulate in the la# on evidence that ever" #itness is presumed to !e truthful and perjur" is not to !e readil" inferred just !ecause apparent inconsistencies are evinced in parts of his testimon". Ever" e@ort to reconcile the conBicting points should $rst !e e)erted !efore an" adverse conclusion can !e made therefrom.  These considerations lie at the !ase of the familiar rule re8uiring the la"ing of a predicate% #hich is essence means simpl" that it is the dut" of a part" tr"ing to impugn the testimon" of a #itness !" means of prior or% for that matter% su!se8uent inconsistent statements% #hether oral or in #riting% to give the #itness a chance to reconcile his conBicting declarations% such that it is onl" #hen no reasona!le e)planation is given !" him that he should !e deemed impeached. >ut if% as in the instant case of the #itness +ngeles% the prosecution did not o!ject to the presentation of E)hi!it 1: #hich #as o@ered e)pressl" for impeachment purposes% not#ithstanding that the defense did not give the #itness the opportunit" to give his o#n e)planation of the apparent contradictions in his testimon"% the trial judge and the appellate courts have no alternative !ut to determine% if  the" can% possi!le reconciliation on the !asis alone of logic

•

and common e)perience. The omission to o!ject on the ground of failure to la" the predicate is #aived !" the omission to interpose the same #hen the impeaching contradictor" statement is o@ered.  The inconsistencies in the t#o versions of +ngeles utterl" !e"ond possi!le rational e)planation. The various discrepancies and there are still others 5e have not mentionedare so disparate that there can !e no other conclusion than that the #itness must have led in either of  them.

SECON", AS TO MIG%EL PA"RONES 'OTE4 /I0UEL P+RO'E3 I3 O'E O, T7E +CCU3E% >UT 7E 5+3 U3E >6 T7E PRO3ECUTIO' +3 O'E O, T7E 5IT'E33E3. that the said accused /iguel Padrones appears to !e the least guilt" and that he has never !een convicted of an" crime involving moral turpitude. P+RO'E3 +3 + 3T+TE 5IT'E33 •

•

•

7aving in vie# the testimon" of +ngeles% #hich had onl" a ha" reference to the supposed participation of appellant in the o@ense charged% and ta&ing into account E)hi!it 1:% #hich the prosecution could not have !een ignorant of% pointing to Padrones instead of said appellant as the one #ho chased and shot the deceased as the latter came out of Capital Theater% it is to !e #ondered ho# Padrones #as selected as state #itness.  The prosecution could easil" have chosen other #itnesses% even from among the other alleged participants in the a@ra"% #ho appeared to have had minor parts therein% if not from the tric"cle drivers #ho% from Padrones o#n account% must have seen #hat happened% and "et Padrones had to !e the one allo#ed to go scot D free.  The repeated references to un&no#n participants is unnatural. o 7o# could there !e a conspirac" of the character charged in the information #here four of the participants #ere not supposedl" &no#n to an" of  the #itnesses #ho themselves are alleged to have !een in the conspirac"

+3 TO T7E TE3TI/O'6 O, P+RO'E3

•

•

•

•

 The most m"stif"ing circumstance e)tant in the record #as the attitude of !oth the prosecution and the trial judge in regard to #hat appears clearl" to !e a statement given !" Padrones to the Ca!anatuan Cit" police in the person of a certain Patrolman Corporal (. 3. iloria on Octo!er F% 19:* immediatel" after he #as arrested.  There #as a deli!erate and concerted intent to prevent the impeachment of Padrones% e)cept that the prosecutor failed to realie that #ith his omission to o!ject to the testimon" of (udge icencio% all his transparent moves to suppress the presentation of the statement of said #itness of Octo!er F% 19:* #ould come to naught. The record reveals onl" too plainl" that several recesses #ere allo#ed !" 7is 7onor at critical stages of the cross?e)amination for the o!vious purpose of a@ording the #itness opportunit" to adjust his testimon" #ith the help of the prosecutor  that #ith his !eing alread" released after his discharge on (anuar" G% 19:*  so much so that after the spirited s&irmishes !et#een defense counsel and the prosecutor #hen the session of (anuar" G% 19:* #as to end% the signi$cance of  #hich could not have !een lost to him% at the resumption of  the trial on ,e!ruar" 1*% 19:*% the #itness tried to sing a di@erent tune The Court holds that the State’s witness executed an afdavit immediately ater his arrest stating that he rather than the appellant chased and shot the deceased and that the alleged afdavit o the witness o later date submitted by t he prosecution is not o regular origin. Contrar" to the un#arranted and incomprehensi!le $nding of 7is 7onor HCircuit Criminal Court% iloria of the Ca!anatuan Cit" Police on Octo!er F% 19:* immediatel" after his arrest% his o#n account of #hat happened in the afternoon of (une *2% 19:1 at the Capital Theater and su!se8uentl" near the Old Repu!lic Telephone Compan" in Ca!anatuan Cit" that led to the death of 0onalo Talastas and that he signed and s#ore to said statement !efore  (udge +l$n icencio% then of the Cit" Court of Ca!anatuan Cit"% that same da"% to #hom he #as !rought !" the same Patrolman Corporal iloria.  The attitude sho#n in the premises !" istrict 3tate Prosecutor /ariano . Copu"oc of feigning ignorance of  +nne) + and attempting to impose upon the court the theor" that E)hi!it *?+ #as the one given !" Padrones on Octo!er F% 19:*% to !e lac&ing in candor to the court under

•

•

•

prejudicial to the interests of justice. Li&e#ise% the circumstances under #hich E)hi!it *?+% the supposed statement of Padrones !earing t#o dates% Octo!er 19 or *J% 19:*% and supposedl" signed !efore ,iscal del Rosario% came into !eing need to !e in8uired into% there !eing indications from the circumstances 5e have found !orne !" the record that it is not of regular origin.  The trial court committed a reversi!le error in not giving due course to the motion for reconsideration andKor ne# trial of  the defense dated +pril 1% 19:G% if onl" for the purpose of  delving deeper into the e)ecution of +nne) + thereof% #hich appears to !e the statement given !" Padrones on Octo!er F% 19:* to Patrolman Corporal iloria and #hich he signed and s#ore to !efore (udge icencio% #herein Padrones categoricall" confessed that he% and not appellant elasco% #as the one #ho chased and shot to death 0onalo Talastas during the incident here in 8uestion. The Testimony o a member o the Judiciary to be given credence over wavering testimony o State witness. In the face of this solemn testimon" of a fello# mem!er of  the judiciar" of e8ual ran&% as against the #avering and fast changing declarations of a discharged accused% that Mit is regretta!le to state that he ;(udge icencio< failed to state at least the su!stantial contents of said aNdavit% ;the statement of Padrones !efore him of Octo!er F% 19:*< assuming that there #as reall" an aNdavit of Octo!er F e)ecuted !" /iguel Padrones. 7uman as #e all are% it is unavoida!le for our minds to slip particularl" as regards the dates% considering the length of time and the #or& that confronted 7is 7onor% the 7onora!le +l$n icencio is purel" a slanted rationaliation and an une)cusa!le displa" of  uncommon naivet" trul" un!ecoming of a judicial trier of  facts.