335 Phil. 602
VITUG, J.:
"A thorough search inside the cars yielded for NBI Regional Chemist Cesar Cagalawan two strands of hair found at the rubber matting of the baggage compartment of the green Toyota. When compared with hair strands that Cagalawan had taken from the back of the victim's head at the morgue and the site of the burning at barangay Fuente, Cagalawan's finding was that the hair strands were similar. Photograph of the hair found in the baggage compartment (Exhibit `V') and Cagalawan's Biological Report (Exhibit `W') were admitted in evidence. Cagalawan who had eight (8) years experience as NBI chemist at the time of his testimony, was and still is the chemist of the NBI. He noted that the hair strands found at the baggage compartment had elongated bulbs indicating that they were forcibly pulled off. He admitted however that it could not be ascertained that a particular hair belonged to a particular person. But what is important is that this government chemist found hair strands in the baggage compartment of the green car, an unlikely place to say the least. This indicated that the victim was placed inside the baggage compartment of the green car when her body was transported to Fuente, Carmen, Cebu."[1]
"Dear Charming Pang,
"x x x x x x x x x
"You know Pang? I have a big personal knots! Siguro nasayad ka? di ba? I know nga gibali-wala ko nimo! Okey lang!! Abi nimo two months na rin! Ang akong kuyawan nga kong maklaro unyo? Maong magplano ko nga magpalayo. Maglisod ko sa atong problema! I know nga ika-ulaw ko nimo! I promise pang! nga dili ka nako basulon! mag-pray lang ko sa Lord! para nako. Mas maayo ang akong plano nga molarga ko nga magpalayo ko diri sa Cebu. Aron dili masamok. Thank you! This is the last letter.
"P. S. answer please!
It's me."[4]
"The undersigned 2nd Assistant Fiscal of the City of Cebu amending his information dated July 29, 1987, accused Dr. Rebecco Sator and others described herein under fictitious names as John Doe and Richard Doe since their true names are unknown of the crime of Murder committed as follows:
"Q Did Dr. Sator report to the Bureau of Quarantine, the following Monday, July 6, 1987?
"A Yes, he reported to his office.
"Q Did you notice anything unusual about his appearance particularly about his attire?
"A What I noticed at that time was that he was always wearing a long sleeves.
"Q For how long, can you recall, that you noticed him wearing long sleeves?
"A About one week.
"Q When was the last time that you had a talk or conversation with Dr. Sator?
"A The later part of October 1987.
"Q How did you come to have a conversation with him?
"A We happened to have a conversation with Dr. Sator in the later part of October 1987 because he called me up and told me that if ever I would stand as witness in this case and if ever I would be interrogated by counsel, I will tell the Court that every time he goes to his office the window of his car is always closed."[7]
"Q Now, did you take a look at Dr. Sator at that time?
"A Yes.
"Q Did you notice anything on him?
"A I have noted that he was wearing a long-sleeved shirt and when I was called to see in a certain part of the interview when his long sleeved shirt were asked to be rolled up, I occasioned to see or observe abrasions in the front part of the upper third of his right forearm.
"Q Now, in your opinion, what could have caused the abrasions that you saw in the arm of Dr. Sator?
"A These abrasions are caused by contact with a hard object, by friction or by sliding.
"Q Could you cite us a specific object that could have caused that?
"COURT
Do you think he would know the specific object?
"ATTY. TORIBIO
Any object, Your Honor, that would have caused that.
"WITNESS
"A Well, I could give any object with this part causing these abrasions simplified already. For instance caused by fingernails.
"ATTY. TORIBIO
That is all, Your Honor, for the witness.
"COURT
"Q Sharp fingernails?
"A Hard, sharp fingernails.
"Q Did you find out how many abrasions were there in the body of Dr. Sator?
"A There were three (3) almost parallel abrasions running in the upper part of the forearm.
"Q Could you tell the Court the location or area of the body where the abrasions which could have been caused by the fingernails?
"A In this area, Your Honor.
"COURT INTERPRETER
Witness pointing to the portion of his right forearm just below the front part of the elbow joint.
"COURT
"Q Is that the only area where you found abrasions?
"A Yes, Your Honor.
"ATTY. REMOTIGUE
Upper middle portion.
"COURT
"Q Did you recall the length of the abrasions?
"A I will approximate, Your Honor, that is running about five centimeters.
"Q Caused only by one fingernail?
"A Caused by three fingernails because there were three abrasions running.
"Q Side by side, parallel?
"A Yes, Your Honor."[8]
"ATTY. TORIBIO
"Q Did you have a chance to talk with Zaldy Sios-e whom you saw conversing with the occupant of the white car?
"A Yes, we had a conversation.
"Q Why were you able to talk with him?
"A From the store where Zaldy Sios-e bought medicine he proceeded towards home so, I called him and asked what was the conversation about between him and the occupant of the car.
"Q And what did Zaldy Sios-e tell you?
"A According to Zaldy Sios-e he was invited by the occupants of the car to eat with them but he refused and asked the occupants of the car why they happened to take their meals beside the road when there is a restaurant in the vicinity but according to the occupants of the car they were in a hurry because they were proceeding towards Bogo.
"COURT
"Q Did you find it unusual for the car to park in the area where that parked?
"A That was the only instance, Your Honor, that I saw a car parked in that premises."[9]
Zaldy Sios-e likewise testified, thus:
"ATTY. TORIBIO
"Q With the kind permission of this Honorable Court.
Mr. Sios-e, do you recall where you were on July 4, 1987, at 9:00 o'clock in the evening?
"A I was in my house, sir.
"Q Where is your house located?
"A At barangay Fuente, Carmen, Cebu.
"Q Did you ever go out of your house at that time?
"A Yes, sir.
'Q When you went out of the house that night, did you see or notice anything unusual?
"A Yes, there was.
"COURT
"Q What time was that when you went out of your house?
"A At 9:00 o'clock in the evening, Your Honor.
"ATTY. TORIBIO
"Q What did you see when you went out of your house?
"A I saw a parking white car in front of our house.
"COURT
"Q Did you find it unusual to find the car being parked in front of your house?
"A Yes, because when I went outside my house, I was called by the occupants of the car and I got near the car.
"Q So that is unusual?
"A Yes, Your Honor, because he invited me to eat with them but I refused because I had already taken my supper at that time.
"COURT
"Q I did not ask you whether the occupant of the car invited you to eat supper with them. The question of the Court is: did you find the parking of the car in front of your house unusual?
"WITNESS
"A Yes, that is unusual for me because that was the first time that an automobile was parked in front of our house.
"COURT
Proceed.
"ATTY. TORIBIO
"Q Will you please describe before this Court the appearance of the white car that was parked in front of your house?
"A There was a Mitsubishi Lancer, colored white, with four doors and with a rainbow-colored sticker placed at the back of the windshield of the car.
"Q After you had a conversation with the occupant inside that car, where did you go?
"A I passed at the back of the car and walked towards the street in order to go to a store to buy medicine."[10]
"WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty as charged of the crime of Murder, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing him to suffer the penalty of TWELVE YEARS of Prision Mayor as minimum to NINETEEN (19) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal as maximum and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P50,000."[11]Sator interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, after its own review of the case, concurred with the trial court in convicting appellant of murder for the killing of the hapless victim but disagreed with the trial court in its sentence. The appellate court held:
"x x x Murder is punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death (Article 248, Revised Penal Code). Considering that there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances present in the instant case, the proper imposable penalty should be the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period which is reclusion perpetua, pursuant to paragraph 1, Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code.
"WHEREFORE, modified as indicated above, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED."[12]
"1. That the corpse discovered at Fuente, Carmen, Cebu was Susan Marayan;
"2. That Susan Marayan and the accused had an illicit relationship;
"3. That the accused endeavored to keep the relationship secret;
"4. That Susan Marayan believed herself or pretended to be pregnant thus making the disclosure of the relationship imminent. Moreover, Susan was insecure of the affection of the accused whom she complained to be neglecting her x x x;
"5. That Susan was admittedly in the company of the accused at about 7:00 p.m. of July 4, 1987 when she boarded his green Toyota car with Plate No. GBZ-386 near the Mabolo police station;
"6. That at about that time, while defecating in the area known as the lover's lane, about 700-800 meters away, Ireneo Tangaro witnessed a man and a woman arrive in a car and after a while witnessed the man strangling the woman who struggled futilely to free herself by holding on to the man's arms;
"7. That at about 9:00 p.m. of July 4, 1987, Tagalog and Zaldy Sios-e saw the green Toyota with Plate No. 386 and a cream Lancer car with Plate No. PDJ 347 at barangay Fuente, Carmen. Both cars were admittedly used interchangeably by the accused;
"8. That the victim died of asphyxia by strangulation, with her hand raised and her fingers with its long fingernails in a markedly flexed position;
"9. That the killer was able to transport the body to a remote and secluded area in Fuente approximately 40 km. away from Cebu City;
"10. That her face and body were burned after her death to prevent her identification;
"11. That the accused suffered parallel abrasions on his arm compatible with fingernail scratches. He was notably wearing long-sleeved shirts to the office the week following the incident;
"12. Hair strands were found in the baggage compartment of the green Toyota car."[13]
"Appellant was the only person who could have the opportunity and the means of killing Susan Marayan. He was the last person seen with Susan on 4 July 1987 near the Mabolo Police Station. That Susan boarded appellant's green Toyota car and who drove towards the reclamation area. At about 7:00 o’clock that same night, Ireneo Tangaro who was defecating at the said area saw a green Toyota car stop, with a man and a woman inside. He saw the man strangling the woman who was heard to be crying `Don't! don't! `Help!', help'. After a few minutes, the car left. At about 9:00, the green Toyota car was seen somewhere in Fuente, Carmen. The following day, in a secluded place in that barangay, a dead naked woman's body was seen. The autopsy showed that the dead woman died of asphyxia by strangulation. Besides, appellant had the motive for it is not disputed that he and Susan had been having an illicit affair which has been kept a secret as the appellant is legally married to a career-oriented woman who happens to be the Branch Manager of a reputable bank. The desire to keep the relationship a secret was jeopardized when Susan believed herself, or pretended to be, two (2) months pregnant. The handwritten love note dated 3 July 1987 (Exh. `X-8') which Susan did not send proves this fact. Thus, the letter reads:
"`Dear Charming Pang,
`x x x x x x x x x
"While the tenor of the note shows that Susan Marayan never intended to reveal the relationship with the appellant as she was intending to go away from Cebu, Susan could have changed her mind. Her not sending the note to appellant could be taken to mean that she wanted to tell appellant personally thus the meeting with the latter on 4 July 1987.The inconsistencies allegedly committed by prosecution witness Ireneo Tangaro who, such as the trial court did observe, has tended to exaggerate at times are not enough to destroy his entire testimony. While it might be unlikely for Tangaro to have been able to distinctly recognize the faces of appellant and the victim inside the car considering the poor illumination in the area, it, nonetheless, could not have prevented Tangaro from sufficiently discerning the incident then transpiring inside the car, the vehicle being only about two fathoms away from him. A witness' exaggerations could, in fact, show that the court is not dealing with a rehearsed witness. Most importantly, no evidence has been presented to show bias or ill motives on the part of Tangaro that could have caused him to falsely impute to the accused the commission of such a heinous crime.
"Men do not ordinarily commit grave crimes unless there is in their minds a motive strong enough to overcome the natural repugnance against crime, and the fear of punishment which usually follows detection (Dale, C. J., in Son vs. Terr. 5 Okl. 526, 49 Pac. 923).
"The imminent danger of the disclosure of the illicit relationship, the effect of ruining his reputation as a doctor and his good social standing in the community and that of his wife and children, the repercussions if his wife discovers that he sired a child by another woman and the anger upon learning of such unwanted pregnancy, may have brought the accused to commit such crime.
"As succintly put by the trial court, `the angry tone of a man heard by Tangaro was the irritation of the man, his passion for the girl now on the wane, being called to account for neglecting or ignoring her, possibly pressured to acknowledged that he was going to sire a child by her.' (p. 10, Decision)
"This is not a case of `paregla' or senseless killing as aptly observed by the court a quo, that `the elaborate efforts made to prevent identification of the victim, as shown by the severely burnt face, could only have been made by one who expected to be connected to victim's death x x x. The victim would simply have been left in the place where she was killed. But the killer took elaborate pains not only to hide the victim but also to hide the identity. Her body was brought to a secluded place in Fuente in the hope that it would never be discovered. It was burned so that even if it were discovered, it could not be identified and no connection would be made to the killer.' (p. 10, Decision)
"All these, taken altogether, lead to no other inference than that the appellant is guilty of the crime charged."[15]
"From the time appellant arrived in Cebu City from Mandaue at about 7:00 p.m. to the time he picked up Susan at the Mabolo Police Station and the time he reached Edgar's place, only 30 minutes had elapsed. The Mabolo Police Station and the reclamation area is only 700-800 meters away. Taking a car, one could reach the place in several minutes. The strangling as testified by Ireneo Tangaro took only a few minutes. The places where appellant was in that fateful night are all very near the reclamation area where the strangling took place. It could not have been difficult for the appellant to be at the place in the Reclamation Area considering the nearness and easy accessibility from the places where he claimed to be at that moment. The defense miserably failed to demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime."[16]The Court is satisfied that appellant's guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. The appellate court is correct in holding that the penalty, there being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, is, pursuant to paragraph 1, Article 64, of the Revised Penal Code, the medium of the penalty prescribed by law. Murder is punishable, under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Its medium period is reclusion perpetua.