337 Phil. 355
PANGANIBAN, J.:
“The undersigned hereby accuses EDWIN NARDO and WILLY YLARDE of the crime of MULTIPLE MURDER WITH DOUBLE FRUSTRATED MURDER, committed as follows:That on or about the 21st day of July, 1985, in the evening, at Barangay Poblacion East, municipality of Umingan, province of Pangasinan, New Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill and with the qualifying circumstance of treachery armed with M16 Armalite Rifles, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot and fire at in a sudden and unexpected manner, CLARO SUITOS, MICAELA SUITOS, CLARENCE SUITOS, ANICIA SALES, MACARIO DELA PEÑA and LUZVIMINDA PUDOL, causing the death of CLARENCE SUITOS, ANICIA SALES, MACARIO DELA PEÑA and LUZVIMINDA PUDOL and wounding CLARO SUITOS on the left shoulder and MICAELA SUITOS on the left hip, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of CLARENCE SUITOS, ANICIA SALES, MACARIO DELA PEÑA, LUZVIMINDA PUDOL, CLARO SUITOS and MICAELA SUITOS.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused Edwin Nardo and Willy Ylarde GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Multiple Murder with Double Frustrated Murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code and there being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance to off-set each other, hereby sentences both accused to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay jointly and severally the following:1. Heirs of Clarence Suitos, P50,000.00 as indemnity plus P3,500.00 for the coffin and P10,000.00 for the expenses incurred during the wake;
“EVIDENCE OF THE STATE:Disposing of the accused’s defense of alibi, the trial court gave credence to the categorical and positive testimony given by Eyewitnesses Micaela Suitos and Rogelio Fernandez identifying the accused as the perpetrators of the mass murder. Said eyewitnesses were without motive or ill will to perjure their testimonies and to implicate appellants in the crime. Although Micaela Suitos failed to name the accused during the police investigation conducted immediately after the incident, the trial judge attributed this failure to the “tension of the moment, shock, excitement and haste, which fact was sustained by (Pat. Nicanor) Aquinde when he agreed to the burning of the alleged unfinished and unsigned statements” of Claro and Micaela Suitos.
From the collective testimonies of Dra. Thelma Busto, MHO of Umingan, Pangasinan, Micaela Suitos, wife of Claro (Vic) Suitos one of the injured parties and Rogelio Fernandez, the incident happened as follows:
In the morning of July 21, 1985, the accused Edwin Nardo and Willy Ylarde went to the eatery of spouses Claro (Vic) and Micaela Suitos located at the public market of Umingan, Pangasinan. They brought with them a buri bag which turned out to contain marijuana leaves. They were offering to sell the same to Claro Suitos who told them that it is prohibited, so they left.
At around 6:30 in the evening of the same day, Edwin Nardo and Willy Ylarde went back to the eatery of the spouses and then and there fired indiscriminately at the place with a baby armalite used by Edwin Nardo and a short firearm used by Willy Ylarde. The firing resulted to (sic) the death of Clarence Suitos, Anicia Sales, Macario dela Peña and Luzviminda Pudol and in the wounding of Claro (Vic) Suitos, Micaela Suitos and the slightly (sic) wounding of Marivic Suitos.
The spouses Claro and Micaela Suitos were brought to the Sacred Heart Hospital in Urdaneta, Pangasinan where they were treated spending P15,000.00 leaving a balance of P6,000.00 unpaid. Their wounded daughter Marivic was merely extended first aid because her injury was merely slight (daplis). Their other daughter Clarence who died in the incident caused them to spend P3,500.00 for her coffin and P10,000.00 for the nine-day wake.
Upon the agreement of the prosecutor and the defense counsel, the expenses for the funeral and wake of the deceased Macario dela Peña and Anicia Sales were pegged at P20,000.00 each while for the deceased Luzviminda Pudol, it was pegged at P15,000.00.
The dead namely, Luzviminda Pudol, Macario dela Peña, Clarence Suitos and Anicia Sales were autopsied by Dra. Thelma Busto (Exhs. A to D).
Pending trial, Claro (Vic) Suitos died in an ambush on October 23, 1989.
EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE:
The accused put up the defense of alibi.
They claim that in the morning of July 21, 1985, they went to the eatery of the spouses Claro and Micaela Suitos to sell ten (10) cartoons (sic) of blue seal Marlboro cigarettes and five (5) packages of matches contained in a bag owned by Boy Lopez. Failing to sell the items, as instructed of them by the owner Boy Lopez, they proceeded to Quezon City at around 11:00 a.m. to return the said items to Boy Lopez at 89 West Point St., Cubao, Quezon City. They arrived at 4:00 p.m.. They slept at said place with the caretaker Juan Andres, Jr. and the maid of Boy Lopez named Rosie Espiritu. They left for Umingan, Pangasinan the following day, July 22, 1985.
Their stay at Quezon City was corroborated by witness Juan Andres, Jr., the caretaker of Boy Lopez.
Witness for the defense Nicanor Aquinde, a police investigator of the PC/INP of Umingan, Pangasinan testified that immediately after the incident, he investigated the spouses Claro and Micaela Suitos at the Sacred Heart Hospital in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. In that investigation, both mentioned names other than the herein accused as suspects. Said investigation however which was reduced to writing was unfinished and unsigned because the spouses requested him that they will better give their statements as soon as they get fully well as they are still in a state of shock. And upon their request which said investigator granted, the unfinished and unsigned statements were burned by him.
Reynaldo Andres, on the other hand, testified as follows:
On the day of the incident, he was a tricycle driver then residing at Brgy. Sinabaan, Umingan, Pangasinan. At around 8:00 p.m. on July 21, 1985, he parked his tricycle in the western gate of the compound of public market of Umingan, Pangasinan while waiting for passengers. While thereat, he heard gunshots so he took cover. After the firing, four (4) men approached him and told him to carry them somewhere near the boundary of Umingan and Lupao. Because he was threatened with a long firearm, he ferried them to the destination he was told which was near the boundary of Lupao and Umingan where there were no houses. He did not recognize any of them because it was night-time.”[8]
“The trial court erred in not acquitting the two herein accused upon the ground that although their defense, in the nature of alibi, is inherently a weak defense, it should be considered sufficient as in this case, to tilt the scale of justice in favor of the accused because the evidence of the prosecution is itself weak and unconvincing and therefore, by and large, insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”[11]Restated in clearer and more concise form, the issue centers on the credibility of witnesses and sufficiency of prosecution evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
“x x x when the question is raised as to whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, the trial court’s choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and deportment on the witness stand, and the manner in which they gave their testimonies, and therefore could better discern if such witnesses were telling the truth; the trial court is thus in the better position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Therefore, unless the trial judge plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, his assessment on credibility must be respected.”[12]After a scrupulous review of the records of the case, we find that the court a quo did not overlook any fact of substance and value which would alter the conviction of the appellants. No palpable error was committed by the said trial court in assessing the credibility of both prosecution and defense witnesses, and in weighing the value of their testimonies. It correctly concluded that the defense of “alibi is unavailing because the accused were positively identified by witnesses without motive to charge falsely the accused especially with a grave offense that could bring death by execution on the culprit(s).”[13] Besides, Micaela Suitos was a victim herself and a close relative of other victims, whose testimony should normally be accepted since such witness “usually strive(s) to remember the face(s) of the assailant(s).”[14] Furthermore, “relationship with a victim would deter a witness from indiscriminately implicating anybody to the crime. His natural and usual interest would be to identify the malefactor and secure his conviction to obtain true justice for the death of a relative. This is (e)specially so when the witnesses were present at the scene of the crime.”[15] In this case, Micaela Suitos witnessed the event. She unwaveringly and steadfastly testified as follows:
Q On July 21, 1985, on or about 6:30 o’clock in the evening, do you recall where you were?The fact that Rogelio Fernandez did not give any statement to the police right after the incident does not cast veritable doubt on his credibility as averred by accused-appellants. We have held that the lapse of a considerable length of time before a witness comes forward to reveal the identities of the assailants does not taint the credibility of the witness and his testimony.[21] The initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information about a criminal case and their unwillingness to be involved in criminal investigations due to fear of reprisal are common occurrences and have been judicially declared to have no significant effect on their credibility. There is no law which requires that the testimony of a prospective witness should be reduced into writing in order that his declaration in court at a later date may be believed.[22]
A I was inside our eatery inside the market.
Q Were you alone?
A We were then six.
Q Who were your companions?
A My husband, Vic Suitos, Clarance[16] Suitos, Minda Pudol, Alicia[17]Sales and Macario dela Peña.
Q What is the name of your husband?
A Claro Suitos.
COURT:
Q Where is that eatery located?
A Inside the market of Umingan, Pangasinan.
PROS. PEREGRINO:
Q Do you have any relationship with Vic Suitos?
A My husband.
Q Do we get it from you that the nickname of Vic is Claro?
A Yes, sir.
Q How are you related to Clarence Suitos?
A She is my daughter.
x x x x x x x x x
Q While you and your companions whose names you just mentioned in the Honorable Court are with you in your carenderia on that date and time, do you recall of any unusual incident that happened?
A I saw the shooting and their death.
Q Who did the shooting?
A Edwin Nardo and Ylarde.
Q Do you know the person by the name of Willy Ylarde?
A He used to be my customer.
Q Yes, but you mentioned previously a certain person who did the shooting as Ylarde, I am asking you if you know one by the name of Willy Ylarde?
A I know him, sir. He is there. Witness pointing to the accused Willy Ylarde.
Q Will you also point to the person of Edwin Nardo?
A Witness pointing to the person of Edwin Nardo.
Q Who were those shot by the shooting made by the two accused?
A Clarence Suitos, Minda Pudol, Macario dela Peña, Vic Suitos and I. Anicia Sales including my daughter were also wounded in their arm.
Q What is the name of your daughter?
A Marivic Suitos.
Q Where were Edwin Nardo and Willy Ylarde at the time when they made the shooting of those persons mentioned including yourself?
A They were fronting my restaurant. I thought they are going to eat but its (sic) not.
Q What happened with Clarence Suitos?
A She died.
Q How about Alicia Sales?
A She also died.
Q How about Macario dela Peña?
A He also died.
Q Minda Pudol?
A She also died.
Q How about your husband Vic Suitos?
A We brought him with (sic) the police car to the nearest hospital.
Q How about you?
A I was also brought to the Doctor’s Hospital.
Q Where?
A Urdaneta, Pangasinan.
Q Do we get it from you that both you and your husband went to the hospital?
A Yes, sir.
Q By the way can you tell the Honorable Court what kind of gun was used by Edwin Nardo and Willy Ylarde in shooting you and your companions inside your carenderia on July 21, 1985?
A What I know it’s a baby armalite because it’s inside the jacket.”[18]
The above account of Micaela Suitos was corroborated in substance by the other eyewitness, Rogelio Fernandez. He also positively identified both accused as the gunwielders who had indiscriminately fired at the Suitos’ canteen. The relevant portions of his testimony are as follows:
Q On July 21, 1985 at around 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon or in the evening, where were you?
A We were in town.
Q You said we who was your companion at that time?
A Dela Peña.
Q What particular place in the Poblacion were you at around 6:00 P.M. on July 21, 1985?
A We were at the side of the market.
x x x x x x x x x
Q When you reached the market place what did you do?
A We parked our motorcycle.
Q Where did you park the motorcycle?
A South of the market.
Q And after parking the motorcycle where did you go with dela Peña?
A Dela Peña went to take coffee.
Q While dela Peña was taking coffee what were you doing?
A I was tying the items we have bought.
Q While tying the items that you bought (or) that you purchased(,) what things have you observed, if any?
A I have seen two men approaching.
Q You said two men were approaching(,) from what place have they come from?
A They came from the western gate of the market.
Q What else did you observe after seeing these two persons in the western gate of the market?
A When I saw these two persons(,) I notice that one of them is wearing a long sleeves jacket as they enter the western gate.
Q Where did they proceed after the two persons enter the western gate?
A They went infront of the canteen.
Q While they were infront of the canteen(,) what were the things that you observed?
A They brought out their guns.
x x x x x x x x x
Q You said that they brought out their firearms(,) what firearms did you see?
A One long firearm and one short.
Q After they brought out their respective firearms(,) what happened next?
A When they brought out their firearms(,) they fired.
Q To whom did they fire?
A In the canteen.
Q After they fired at the carinderia(,) what did you observe?
A I saw Macario dela Peña fell (sic) down.
Q Is this Macario dela Peña the victim in this case?
A Yes, sir.
x x x x x x x x x
COURT:
Q Who was the person who was holding a long firearm, will you go down and identify him?
A Witness tapped the shoulder of the person who identify (sic) himself as Edwin Nardo.
FISCAL CORPUZ:
Q As to the person who was holding a short firearm(,) will you tap the shoulder?
A Witness tapped the shoulder of the person who identified himself to be Willie[19] Ylarde.”[20]
Q Where did you conduct the first investigation of Claro Suitos and Micaela Suitos?Furthermore, Aquinde even agreed to burn the alleged unfinished and unsigned statements of the Suitos spouses. This all the more confirms the fact that the spouses might not have been in their complete senses when investigated by Aquinde. Human memory may be temporarily paralyzed by an appalling tragedy, especially if it involves the witness’ family. Eventually, however, as the witness recovers from the trauma, memory regains its clarity.[25] This explains the experience of Micaela Suitos.
A At the Sacred Heart Hospital, Urdaneta, Pangasinan.
Q How did you find their conditions(?) (W)ere they coherent in answering the questions?
A I think they were still under shock during that time.
Q Did they understand your questions when you profounded (sic) to them?
A I do not know if they understand fully.”[24]
Q While they were infront of the canteen(,) what were the things that you observed?His testimony was not rebutted by the defense. The ineludible conclusion is that the killing of the four victims and wounding of two others resulted from several discharges of firearms. When various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes.[41] Thus, appellants should be held liable for the separate crimes of four murders and two attempted murders.
A They brought out their guns.
x x x x x x x x x
Q You said that they brought out their firearms(,) what firearms did you see?
A One long firearm and one short.
Q After they brought out their respective firearms(,) what happened next?
A When they brought out their firearms(,) they fired.
Q To whom did they fire?
A In the canteen.