389 Phil. 532
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
"That on or about the 9th day of July 1994 in Valenzuela, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, without any justifiable cause, with treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength and with deliberate intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and shoot on the head one BILLY CAJUBAN, thereby inflicting upon said victim serious physical injuries which directly caused his death."When arraigned, both accused entered separate pleas of not guilty. Thereafter, upon motion filed by the accused and hearing conducted thereon by the trial court, an order[5] dated November 9, 1994 was issued granting bail to both accused in the amount of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos in cash each which was later reduced to a cash bond of P20,000.00 each. Only accused Isabelo A. Ragundiaz posted a cash bond of P20,000.00 and was provisionally discharged from police custody. Accused-appellant Rolando Flores remained detained at the Valenzuela Municipal Jail.
"From an evaluation of the records, prosecution established that the victim Billy Cajuban was murdered on July 9, 1994, whose body was found at De los Reyes St., Gen. T. de Leon, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, in a muddy portion of the roadside. The victim died of gunshot wound on the head (Exh. Q). Prosecution witnesses SPO1 Josefino Canary and SPO1 Edgar Lim who immediately responded to the report found fresh blood on the body of the victim, which bring to point the probability that the killing might have been perpetrated at same place.Accused Rolando Flores and accused Isabelo Ragundiaz filed separate notices of appeal, the former on February 20, 1996[8] and the latter on March 5, 1996[9]. As stated earlier, the appeal of accused Isabelo Ragundiaz was dismissed by the Court for jumping bail pursuant to Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, the judgment against Isabelo Ragundiaz finding him guilty of murder is now final.
While admittedly, there is no eyewitness of the killing per se, the Court nonetheless appreciates the finding of conviction on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt on accused (Article III, Sec. 12 (1), 1987 Constitution). This is so because crimes are usually committed in secret and under conditions where concealment is highly improbable. To require direct testimony in all cases would result in the acquittal of guilty parties leaving them free to once more wreak havoc on society (People vs. Lavuzo, 175 SCRA 47, cited in People vs. Gonzaga, G.R. No. 90036, August 21, 1992).
Prosecution witness Alberto Castillo saw on July 9, 1994 at 12:30 early morning Isabelo Ragundiaz having an altercation with Billy Cajuban, the former boxed, poked a gun and dragged the latter and boarded him in a taxicab (El Salvador) then driven by Rolando Flores. They had three (3) other companions, who were not identified.
Prosecution witness Lito Salinas testified that while on duty as waiter at Skyblue Beerhouse located at 8th Avenue cor. Rizal Avenue, Kalookan City, at around 3:30 in the morning of July 9, 1994, he saw Rolando Flores, Isabelo Ragundiaz and three others entered the beerhouse. He noticed that the shirt of Flores was stained with blood and that there was wound on his left hand. They boarded an El Salvador taxi.
A post-mortem examination conducted on the victim shows that the victim died of gunshot wound (Exh. Q).
The statement of Isabelo Ragundiaz that he was at his common law wife's place of work in Makati is corroborated by no less than his common law wife Rachelle Ragundiaz.
Accused Rolando Flores, on the other hand, testified that he went to his residence at 8th Avenue, Kalookan City at 9:00 in the evening of July 9, 1994 to sleep after plying his route and woke up at 5:00 o'clock the next morning. No other witness was presented to corroborate his testimony. In fact, the distance from his residence at 8th Avenue to the place where he was seen together with Isabelo Ragundiaz and three (3) others boarded Billy Cajuban in an El Salvador taxi at 3rd Avenue does not render impossible his participation in the commission of the crime.
With the turn out of events, from the time accused Isabelo Ragundiaz, Rolando Flores and three others were seen along 3rd Avenue, Caloocan City, with Ragundiaz poked a gun and dragged Billy Cajuban inside an El Salvador taxi around 12:30 early morning of July 9, 1994 up to the time the group arrived at Skyblue Beerhouse at 8th Avenue cor. Rizal Avenue, Kalookan City boarding the same taxi, with Rolando Flores sporting a stained shirt and wounded hand at around 3:30 that morning, added the fact that SPO1 Josefino Canary and SPO1 Edgar Lim responded to the report at around 2:00 o'clock that morning and saw the dead body of Billy Cajuban along De los Reyes St., Gen. T. de Leon, Valenzuela, these circumstances are consistent such that the Court is convinced that accused in conspiracy are the perpetrators of the crime.x x x x x x x x x
Circumstances established by the prosecution are consistent and if collated constitute an unbroken chain of events leading to a reasonable conclusion that points to the guilt of the accused.
The allegation of the defense that prosecution witnesses Alberto Castillo and Lito Salinas are relatives of the victim Billy Cajuban does not render inadmissible their testimonies. In fact, even the testimony of accused Isabelo Ragundiaz is corroborated by no less than his common-law-wife, while the testimony of Rolando Flores remained uncorroborated. In People vs. Libungan, G.R. No. 102351, March 22, 1993, the Supreme Court ruled:"Relationship alone is not a ground for discrediting a witness testimony. It is a well-established rule that the mere fact that the witness is a relative of the victim is not a valid on (sic) sufficient ground to disregard the former's testimony nor does it render the same less worthy of credit. In People vs. Cuyo, 196 SCRA 447 (1991), we held that the closeness of the prosecution witnesses' relationship to the victim should not be deemed erosive of their credibility as witnesses. The weight of their evidence must be assessed by the same norms applicable to other witnesses."Absence (sic) proof of ulterior motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to testify against the accused, such testimonies are admissible. In fact, after observing the demeanor and deportment of said witnesses together with the variations of their expressions while on the witness stand, the Court concludes that their testimonies are credible.
The killing perpetrated on the victim having been qualified by the circumstance of abuse of superior strength, the charge of murder is in order. The felons having taken advantage of their collective strength to overwhelm their comparatively defenseless victim, the qualifying circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength is present. The culprits used their dominance in number to over power the deceased. They also used force entirely out of proportion to the means of defense available to the victim who was unarmed unsuspecting of his impending fate and left alone at the mercy of his tormentors (People vs. Waggay, et al., G.R. No. 98154, February 9, 1993)."[6]
On February 16, 1996, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the prosecution having established by proof beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of both accused of the crime of Murder punishable by Article 248(1) of the Revised Penal Code, accused ISABELO RAGUNDIAZ y AUREGUE and ROLANDO FLORES y SAN MIGUEL are hereby found GUILTY as charged acting in conspiracy and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided by law and to indemnify the family of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00 each as death indemnity, P70,000.00 as actual damages and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Accused Rolando Flores shall be credited with the full term of his preventive imprisonment.
The cash bond posted by accused Isabelo Ragudiaz for his preventive imprisonment is hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government.
SO ORDERED."[7]
Appellant avers that only two of the prosecution witnesses provided the court with circumstantial evidence which were used as basis in rendering a judgment of conviction against the accused. These two witnesses, Alberto Castillo and Lito Salinas, testified only on matters which transpired before and after the killing and as such, there was no eyewitness to the actual killing of victim Billy Cajuban. Thus, it is the contention of accused-appellant Flores that the testimonies of these two witnesses do not constitute circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish the guilt of accused Rolando Flores beyond reasonable doubt.I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT CONVICTED THE ACCUSED DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.II
THAT THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE DEFENSE OF ACCUSED.
These two circumstances, coupled with the fact that the dead body of the victim Billy Cajuban was found at around 2:00 A.M. of that same day, were deemed sufficient by the trial court to convict the accused-appellant of the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
(1) Accused-appellant Rolando Flores was present and witnessed the altercation between accused Isabelo Ragundiaz and Billy Cajuban which took place at the basketball court located at 3rd Avenue, Caloocan City at about 12:30 A.M. on July 9, 1994. Appellant Flores stood by and watched his co-accused Ragundiaz box Cajuban on the face and then a poke a gun at him. Finally, appellant Flores allegedly helped Ragundiaz drag Cajuban into an El Salvador Taxi and Flores drove the taxi away from the basketball court with Billy Cajuban, accused Ragundiaz, and three (3) other companions on board; (2) At around 3:30 of that same morning of July 9, 1994, accused-appellant Rolando Flores entered the Sky Blue Beerhouse in Caloocan City together with co-accused Ragundiaz and three other companions but without Billy Cajuban. They arrived at the beerhouse on board an El Salvador Taxi. At that time, the white T-shirt of accused-appellant Flores was stained with blood and he had a wound on the thumb of his left hand.
From, this testimony, it is clear that accused-appellant Flores was a mere bystander when the altercation between accused Ragundiaz and Billy Cajuban was taking place. Likewise, it was accused Isabelo Ragundiaz and not accused Rolando Flores who boxed Billy Cajuban on the face, poked a gun at him and dragged the victim to the El Salvador taxi. As such, from Castillo's testimony, it cannot be inferred that accused-appellant took a direct part in the execution of the crime or that he forced or induced others to commit it. The only participation of accused-appellant Flores was that he allegedly helped in dragging the victim to the taxicab and that he allegedly drove the taxicab away from the basketball court. These acts however have not been shown to be indispensable to the commission of the crime so as to consider him as a principal by indispensable cooperation.
"PROS. NOCHE: Q: Now, on July 9, 1994, at about 12:30 in the evening, did you have any opportunity to see Billy Cahuban? A: Yes, sir. Q: Where?Where? A: In 3rd Avenue, Caloocan City, sir. Q: And what was he doing along 3rd Avenue, Caloocan City? A: He alighted from the taxi and wiping the taxi, sir. Q: And what is the name of the taxi being driven by Billy Cahuban at that night? A: El Salvador, sir. Q: And did you have any opportunity to confer Billy Cahuban at that night. A: No, sir. Q: While...(pause) Now when you saw Billy Cahuban that night, did you notice any unusual incident that happen that night? A: Yes, sir. Q: Please tell us? A: When I was washing car that night, at about 12:30 in the evening of July 9, 1994 I saw Billy Cahuban and another person (witness pointing to a person at the Gallery, whom latter identified as Isabelo Ragundiaz) having an altercation with each other, sir. Q: How far were you from the place where Isabelo Ragundiaz and Billy Cahuban were having altercation with one another? A: More or less ten (10) armslength, sir. Q: And this altercation took place at nighttime. How were you able to recognize that this two (2) persons having altercation were Isabelo Ragundiaz and Billy Cahuban? A: Because the place was bright due to a lighted Meralco post, sir. Q: Now were you able to overhear the altercation between Billy Cahuban and Isabelo Ragundiaz? A: No, sir. Q: How were you able to know that Isabelo Ragundiaz and Billy Cahuban were having an altercation? A: Because they were shouting at each other, sir. Q: And how long did this altercation between Isabelo and Billy last? A: Just a short time, sir. Q: Would you kindly approximate the duration of this altercation? A: About five (5) minutes, sir. Q: And in the meantime that they were having altercation with each other, what were you doing? A: I was washing taxi, sir and watching them. Q: Were there other people around, other than Isabelo, Billy and you at that time, at that place along 3rd Avenue Caloocan City? A: We were the only onces (sic) but there were other people passing by at that time, sir. Q: After this altercation, what happened? A: Billy was boxed "sinapak" and was dragged inside the taxi and drove away with him, sir. XXX XXX XXX PROS. NOCHE: Q: Of course you recognize the persons, who delivered the blow on Billy? A: Yes sir. (Witness pointing inside the court room, a man wearing yellow orange-t-shirt, whom he identified as Isabelo Ragundiaz) and when asked his name answered Isabelo Ragundiaz). Q: And where was Billy Cahuban hit by that blow? A: On the right side of his face, sir. Q: How far were you from Billy Cahuban, when you saw Isabelo delivering blows on the face of Billy? A: More or less about ten (10) armslength, sir. Q: Earlier you stated in open court that "sinapak nila at tinulak nila sa loob ng taxi." What do you mean by "nila"? A: Because they were three (3) persons sir. The two were at the corner, sir. Q: So how many times did you see Isabelo delivering that kind of blow at the person of Billy? A: Once sir. Q: Alright, did you recognize the companions of Isabelo Ragundiaz at that night? A: I only know the two (2), sir. Q: One of the two. What are the names of these two (2) persons that you know? A: I recognized them only by the face, sir. Q: Now, if you will be given the chance to see that person again, will you be able to recognize them? A: Yes, sir. XXX XXX XXX PROS. NOCHE: Q: Do you know a person in the name of Rolando Flores? A: I saw him at the Municipal Hall of Valenzuela, sir. Q: Okey, let us go back to the time when Isabelo delivered a blow on the face of Billy. So what happened to Billy when he was hit by that blow? A: He fell down, sir. Q: Where? A: At the side of his taxi, sir. Q: And was Isabelo the only person who delivered that blow, on the person of Billy? A: Yes, sir. Q: So after Billy fell beside his taxi, what happened next? A: They dragged him inside the taxi and boarded him and drove away with him, sir. XXX XXX XXX Q: To which direction . . . (pause) By the way, who was driving that taxi where Isabelo boarded Billy that night? A: Rolando Flores was the one driving the taxi, sir. XXX XXX XXX PROS. NOCHE: Q: Now, during the incident at that time (sic), there was an altercation between Isabelo Ragundiaz and Billy Cahuban, (what was Rolando Flores doing) up to the time Billy was forcibly entered (sic) inside the taxi and driven away? A: He was just standing sir. And when Isabelo boxed Billy, he helped in dragging Billy inside the taxi, sir. XXX XXX XXX Q: You said that one of those who assisted Isabelo Ragundiaz in this incident was Rolando Flores. Do you remember testifying that? A: Yes sir. Q: Prior to the incident, did you already know the person, Rolando Flores? A: No sir. Q: When was the first time you came to know the name of Rolando Flores? A: Only last July 26, at the municipal hall of Valenzuela, sir. XXX XXX XXX PROS. NOCHE: Q: At that time, the incident happened, were Ragundiaz and his companion armed with anything? A: There was sir. Q: And who among these persons did you see in possession of a weapon? A: Isabelo Ragundiaz, sir. Q: Who else if any? A: No more, sir. Q: What kind of weapon did you see, in possession of Ragundiaz at that time? A: As I see, it was a gun, sir. Q: And where was it placed? A: He was holding it and poked it to Billy Cahuban, sir. COURT: How far were you, when you saw that? A: More or less ten (10) armslength, sir."[15]