361 Phil. 444
PANGANIBAN, J.:
“That on or about the 4th day of December, 1994, in the evening, at Sayre Highway, [B]arangay Sinanguyan, [M]unicipality of Don Carlos, [P]rovince of Bukidnon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill by means of treachery and evident premeditation, armed with a bladed weapon, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally attack, assault and stab RICKY RENEGADO, hitting and inflicting upon his person the following wounds, to wit:Subsequently, on February 14, 1995, a third Information was filed, charging Reduca with frustrated murder, allegedly committed as follows:
- Multiple Stab wounds
which caused the instantaneous death of RICKY RENEGADO, to the damage and prejudice of the legal heirs of RICKY RENEGADO in such amount as may be allowed by law.
“Contrary to and in violation of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659.”[3]
“That on or about the 4th day of December, 1994, in the evening, at Sayre Highway, [B]arangay Sinanguyan, [M]unicipality of Don Carlos, [P]rovince of Bukidnon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill by means of treachery and evident premeditation, armed with a bladed weapon, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally attack, assault and stab MANOLO CABACTULAN, hitting and inflicting upon his person the following wounds, to wit:Considering that the crimes were allegedly committed on one occasion at the same place and by the same suspect, both the prosecution and the defense agreed to hold a joint trial for the three cases. During the arraignment on March 16, 1995, the accused, assisted by Counsel Nemesio G. Beltran, pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial proceeded in due course. On February 8, 1996, the court a quo rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
- Wound at the right portion of the back of his body
which wound would have caused the death of MANOLO CABACTULAN were it not for the timely medical assistance accorded him, thus the accused had performed all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of [m]urder, but which nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes [of] the will of the accused, to the damage and prejudice of MANOLO CABACTULAN in such amount as may be allowed by law.
“Contrary to and in violation of Article 248 in relation to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code.”[4]
“WHEREFORE, the guilt of accused Tito Reduca having been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and pursuant to the provision of R.A. 7659, he is hereby sentenced as follows:In view of the penalty imposed by the trial court, this appeal was filed directly with this Court.[6]1) In Criminal Case No. 7191-95, for murder, accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA; to indemnify the heirs of Ricky Renegado P50,000.00 for civil indemnity, P20,000.00 for moral damages and P6,000.00 as actual expenses;
2) In Criminal Case No. 7192-95, for murder, accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA to indemnify the heirs of Jose Ebangcara the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P20,000.00 for moral damages, and P9,000.00 as actual expenses;
3) In Criminal Case No. 7193-95, for frustrated murder, accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of PRISION MAYOR as minimum to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of RECLUSION TEMPORAL as maximum, to indemnify his victim Manolo Cabactulan the sum of P25,000.00 as civil indemnity, P15,000.00 for moral damages and P16,000.00 as actual expenses.
“SO ORDERED.”[5]
“On December 4, 1994, at around 10:00 in the evening, Jose Ebangcara, Ricky Renegado, Felix Temple and Manolo Cabactulan left the house of Ricky Renegado at Purok 4, North Poblacion, Don Carlos, Bukidnon to proceed to Barangay Sinangoyan, Don Carlos[,] to attend a dance. The four (4) walked abreast [of] each other, on the right side of Sayre Highway. The relative positions of the group were such that Jose Ebangcara was walking along the right side of Cabactulan while on his left side was Renegado followed by Temple on the extreme left (pp. 3-5, TSN, August 18, 1995). While they were walking, Cabactulan saw appellant coming from the cornfield at their right side and almost instantaneously heard Ebangcara utter, ‘I was stabbed, part (meaning partner in local lingo)’. The place was illuminated by the street lamp and fluorescent light coming from a house nearby (pp. 6, 11, ibid.).
“While glancing at Ebangcara, Cabactulan also felt that he was stabbed on his back. He immediately looked around and saw appellant armed with a bolo. Cabactulan ran away towards Maramag, Bukidnon (p. 6-7, ibid.). After running about half a kilometer, Cabactulan fell down in front of a house and lost consciousness, Cabactulan realized that he was being loaded [into] an ambulance. He was brought to the Maramag District Hospital where he was confined for twenty-nine (29) days (pp. 12-13, 23-26, ibid.)
“That same evening of December 4, 1994, Rodrigo Fernandez was at his house at Don Carlos Norte, Don Carlos, Bukidnon, listening to a radio program of DXMB. He was at the balcony of his house when he saw somebody running along the highway towards Barangay Sinangayonan and shouting for help. Fernandez went out of his house and approached the person. He asked the bloodied person who he was and the person identified himself as Ricky Renegado and asked for Simplicio Bariga. Fernandez, on hearing the name of Simplicio Bariga, summoned the latter from his house which was some twenty meters away. When they returned to the place where Fernandez left Renegado, Bariga immediately asked the bloodied person, ‘Ricky, what happened to you?’ [Renegado] replied, ‘Noy[,] I was stabbed’. When asked further who stabbed him, Renegado said it was Reduca. (pp. 49-50, TSN, September 18, 1995). Fernandez, who was some two meters away from Bariga and Renegado, heard them exchange the same question and answer for at least three times. (p. 50, ibid.).
“Simplicio Bariga was watching television at his residence at Don Carlos Norte, Don Carlos, Bukidnon at around ten o’clock in the evening of December 4, 1994 when his neighbor, Rudy Fernandez summoned him to help someone. Bariga took his flashlight and together with Fernandez and his younger brother Ponciano, Bariga proceeded to Sayre highway and there saw Ricky Renegado bloodied and lying on his belly. Bariga asked Renegado three (3) times who stabbed him and xxx everytime[,] the latter replied ‘Reduca’ (pp. 4-6, TSN, September 18, 1995). Not long thereafter, Renegado died. Bariga then instructed someone to fetch the parents of Renegado but it was the latter’s elder brother Momoy Reduca who arrived. Thereafter the policemen arrived and loaded Renegado’s body [into] an ambulance (p. 7, ibid.).
“Renegado died because of multiple stab wounds he sustained, namely, one at the anterior chest wall above the clavicular line, another on the right upper ‘quadra’ abdomen and one at the interphal[ange]l joint between the thumb and index finger. Dr. Filipina Villa, who conducted the postmortem examination on the [sic] Renegado, concluded that the wounds were caused by a knife or bolo (Exh. ‘A’, p. 4, Record[s]; Criminal Case No. 7191-95; pp. 5-6, TSN, September 27, 1995).
“Ebangcara also died as he sustained wounds on the abdomen, on the upper left arm and on the wrist. Dr. Villa, [who] also conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Ebangcara, testified that the wounds were caused by a knife or bolo (Exh. ‘B’, p. 4, Record[s]; Criminal Case No. 7192-95; pp. 9-10, TSN, ibid.).
“1. That at 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon[,] Bonifacio Abara went to the store of Lenie Gomez at [P]urok 4. (Sinangguyan, Don Carlos, Bukidnon) where he met the accused[,] Tito Reduca.
“2. That both of them went to Purok 1, to the store of Rudy Guevara where they drank [t]uba and took supper, staying there [until] around 8:00 o’clock in the evening.
“3. That both of them went to Purok 4[,] where they played basketball until around 10:00 o’clock in the evening.
“4. That at about 8:30 PM, more or less, [the] Baran[gay] Captain[,] together with [the] Kag[awad] and Chairman of [P]eace and [O]rder[,] Percy Tumana, confirmed the presence of Tito Reduca playing basketball on the court which [was] adjacent to the Baran[gay] Hall.
“5. That Baran[gay] [C]aptain Gomez, Percy Tumana and their CVO’s conducted a roving, going first to Purok 7.
“6. That David Umali, a CVO and in charge of the Baran[gay] Hall together with Bonifacio Abara and Tito Reduca slept in the Baran[gay] Hall at about 10:00 pm that night of December 4th[,] 1994.
“7. That Baran[gay] Captain Gomez and Percy Tumana broke up their roving at about 10:30 pm and Capt. Gomez walked to Don Carlos Norte where he was to sleep in the house of his aunt; [t]hat on the way he met four noisy and drunk young men, two of whom he recognized as Ricky Renegado and Felix Temple. The latter was his student when he was still teaching in Don Carlos.
“8. That on the other hand[,] Peroy Tumana and his CVO’s went back to the Baran[gay] Hall, checked[,] and saw David Umali, Tito Reduca and Bonifacio Abara sleeping.
“9. That at about 11:00 pm[,] Captain Gomez, who was already in Don Carlos Norte, learned of the stabbing in his Baran[gay] and immediately[,] he called for assistance asking for [an] ambulance, using his handset radio, and the assistance was immediate.”
The Court will discuss the following issues seriatim: (1) probative value of the prosecution’s evidence; (2) admissibility of Renegado’s dying declaration; and (3) alibi as a defense. In addition, we shall also take up the characterization of the crimes committed, as well as the legality of the money awards handed down by the court a quo.“I
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE WITNESSES OF THE PROSECUTION NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR LACK OF GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO IDENTIFY THE CULPRIT.II
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE WITNESSES OF THE PROSECUTION WHO ALLEGEDLY HEARD THE LATE RICKY RENEGADO TO HAVE SAID THAT THE ONE WHO STABBED HIM [WAS] ‘REDUCA’ NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE SAID TESTIMONIES WERE BELATEDLY GIVEN TO THE POLICE.III
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED ON THE GROUND THAT HIS GUILT HA[D] NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”[10]
Immaterial is the fact that the victims may have drunk liquor a few hours prior to the attack, since it was not shown “just how drunk they were” as they walked along the road. Verily, it was not established how much liquor they had consumed. Indeed, no evidence was offered to show that intoxication had debilitated their senses to the point of negating their claim of having seen their attacker. Nor did Cabactulan positively say that they had scampered away before they were able to see their attacker. Quite the contrary, Felix Temple positively testified that he saw appellant stab the victims, thus:
“Q: And how were you able to recognize your assailant when that was already 10:00 o’clock in the evening?
A: Because we were very near each other. Q: Other than that distance, what else made you recognize him? A: [T]here was also the light of the fluorescent lamp. x x x x x x x x x Q: Now, you said there was light, how far was that light [from] the place where the incident xxx happened? A: About twenty (20) meters.”[12]
The defense claims that Cabactulan had never seen appellant before the incident and, thus, could not have identified him as the attacker. True, Cabactulan had not known appellant prior to the attack, but it does not follow that the witness, who saw him during the attack, was incapable of identifying him. Thus, when Cabactulan again saw appellant during the course of the investigation and the trial, he positively pointed to him as the attacker. We quote his testimony hereunder:
“Q:Now, at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening of December 4, 1994, while you were walking at the Sayre Highway going to Sinangoyan to attend the dance, do you know what transpired if there was any?
A: There was stabbing. Q: Who was stabbed? A: Jose Ebangcara. Q: When you saw Jose Ebangcara was stabbed, was Ebangcara hit? A: He was hit. Q: And when he was hit, what happened to him? A: He died. Q: After Jose Ebangcara was stabbed, what happened next? A: He stabbed Manolo Cabactulan. Q: And was Manolo Cabactulan hit? A: Yes, Sir. Q: After Manolo Cabactulan was stabbed, what happened next? A: He stabbed Ricky Renegado. Q: And was Ricky Renegado hit? A: He was hit. Q: And after Ricky Renegado was stabbed, what happened next? A: Then he faced me and hacked me. Q: And were you hit? A: No, because I noticed his action of hacking me. (witness demonstrated by swinging his right arm towards his front) Q: Did you recognize that person who stabbed Jose Ebangcara, Manolo Cabactulan, Ricky Renegado and yourself? A: Yes, he is Tito Reduca.”[13]
The defense likewise misappreciated Cabactulan’s testimony that he saw Chief of Police Estanislao load him into the ambulance which brought him to the hospital. However, Cabactulan simply testified that he was loaded into the ambulance, not that the police chief rode and accompanied him therein.
“Q: And when for the first time [did] you know that his name [was] Tito Reduca?
A: At the time when the policeman told me his name. Q: At the time you were stabbed and you said you recognized that assailant, did you already know that his name [was] Tito Reduca? A: Not yet. Q: Before the incident, did you already see that assailant of yours? A: Not yet. Q: That assailant which you recognized at the time you were stabbed and that person you saw at the police station[,] were these the same person? A: He is the same person.”[14]
Likewise, Temple’s credibility is not diminished because of an alleged inconsistency between his testimony and his affidavit in respect to the number of times he had previously seen appellant. “The general rule has always been that discrepancies between the statements of the affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit him,”[16] because “affidavits, being taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate x x x.”[17]
“Q: Who loaded you in the ambulance?
A: Chief Estaniel and his companion.”[15]
“SEC. 37. Dying Declaration. --- The declaration of a dying person, made under a consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.”In People v. Almeda,[18] this Court held that “there are four requisites which must concur in order that a dying declaration may be admissible, to wit: (a) it concerns the crime and the surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) at the time it was made, the declarant was under a consciousness of an impending death; (c) the declarant was competent as a witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder or parricide, in which the declarant was the victim.”
“It is settled that delay in divulging names of perpetrators of crimes, if sufficiently explained, does not impair the credibility of the witness and his testimony. The initial reluctance of a witness due to reprisal is common and does not impair his testimony.”Finally, Bariga’s confusion regarding the date when his affidavit was executed is trivial. It pertains to a minor detail and does not affect his credibility. Moreover, this Court has previously explained that “even the most truthful witnesses can sometimes make mistakes, but such innocent lapses do not necessarily affect their credibility.”[21]