337 Phil. 393
PANGANIBAN, J.:
“The undersigned accuses TEODORICO PARAISO alias Commander CONDOR, RONALD REVADONA alias DIEGO and JACINTO APONGAN alias VER and ROBERTO APONGAN alias BERTO of the crime of MURDER, committed as follows:That on or about the 8th day of June 1986, at about 8:30 to 9:00 o’clock in the evening, at Barangay Lagumbingan, Municipality of Midsayap, Province of Cotabato, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused TEODORICO PARAISO alias Commander CONDOR, RONALD REVADONA alias DIEGO, JACINTO APONGAN alias VER, and ROBERTO APONGAN alias BERTO, armed with a deadly bladed weapon, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation and with the use of superior strength, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab Mrs. Victoria Samulde, thus inflicting upon the latter stab wounds on the different parts of her body which were the direct and immediate cause of her death.”
“WHEREFORE, the court finds accused Ronald Revadona and Jacinto Apongan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and the court hereby sentences said Ronald Revadona and Jacinto Apongan to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Ronald Revadona and Roberto Apongan are further sentenced to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Mrs. Victoria Samulde the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay proportionate costs.
The court hereby acquits Roberto Apongan and Teodorico Paraiso for insufficiency of evidence. Roberto Apongan and Teodorico Paraiso are ordered released from detention unless they are otherwise held for another legal cause.”[5]
“The evidence on record has clearly established that at about eight-thirty o’clock in the evening of June 8, 1986 at Barangay Lagumbingan, Midsayap, Cotabato, Mrs. Victoria Samulde and her son Celestino Samulde, Jr. were walking along the barangay road between their house and the house of another son of Mrs. Samulde. They came from the house of the other son. Along the road to the left going to the house of Mrs. Samulde from the house of the son she visited that evening were banana plants, bamboo grooves [sic] and a ‘porok’ (small hut). The ‘porok’ is about fifteen meters to Mrs. Samulde’s house. To the right or opposite side of the road are ipil-ipil trees and the house of Ronquillo. Ronquillo has a broiler poultry which is raised under a camarin. An electric bulb is maintained in the poultry to keep the broilers warm. This electric bulb from the Ronquillo’s poultry reflects its illumination up to the road. It is a little dark along the side of the ipil-ipil trees because of the shadow they cast. The ipil-ipil trees are as tall as Celestino, Jr. While Mrs. Samulde and her son were walking near the ipil-ipil trees, Celestino, Jr., saw Jacinto Apongan and Ronald Revadona walking also along the road coming towards them. Celestino, Jr. first saw Jacinto and Ronald walking towards them at a distance of about ten meters. He recognized Jacinto and Ronald because of the reflection of the electric bulb coming from the Ronquillo poultry. He has known Jacinto and Ronald because they also lived in the same barrio of Lagumbingan and they are neighbors. He has known Ronald since childhood. He used to play basketball with Ronald. He readily identified Ronald and Jacinto in court.In arriving at the above findings, the court a quo relied heavily on the testimony of Celestino Samulde Jr., the only prosecution eyewitness to the fatal stabbing of Mrs. Victoria Samulde, his mother.[7]
Celestino, Jr. was walking about two steps ahead of his mother. Celestino, Jr. and his mother continued walking until they met Jacinto and Ronald. Without any warning or word, Ronald tried to grab the head of Celestino, Jr. Celestino, Jr. ducked to avoid being caught at the same time ran. While running about five meters he looked back and saw Jacinto and Ronald stabbing his mother, Mrs. Samulde. Celestino, Jr. stopped running and looked at Jacinto and Ronald stabbing his mother several times with long knives. He could see the reflection of the knives. Jacinto and Ronald continued stabbing Mrs. Samulde until she fell to the ground. When Mrs. Samulde fell on the ground Jacinto and Ronald still stabbed her making sure that she was already dead. Afterwards, Jacinto and Ronald ran away towards the ricefields. Celestino, Jr. also ran home and called for his father, Celestino Samulde, Sr. and told him that his mother was stabbed. Mrs. Samulde died of multiple stab wounds and dicapitation (sic).”[6]
“x x x (It) has no reason to doubt the testimony of Celestino, Jr. Inspite of the rigid and detailed cross examination made by the two counsels (sic) for the accused on him, Celestino, Jr. never wavered in his testimony. He stuck to the substantial and material points of his testimony, consistent with a truthful and credible witness. If he saw Eduardo to be at the scene of the crime he could have easily stated so. Instead, he categorically declared that the two, Jacinto and Ronald, are the only ones responsible for the death of his mother. There is no reason for Celestino, Jr. to exclude Eduardo from any responsibility in connection with the death of Mrs. Samulde had he really seen Eduardo killing her mother. There is no evidence indicating any reason to exculpate Eduardo. He could not relate anything more than what he saw.”[13]In discrediting the defense of appellant and Revadona, the court a quo asserted:
“On the other hand, Jacinto and Ronald had all the reason to point to another as the author of the crime to free themselves from culpability. The court is not convinced of their defense that Eduardo did the killing of Mrs. Samulde without their participation. Their denial cannot destroy and overcome the positive and direct testimony of Celestino, Jr.”[14]With respect to the other accused, the trial court found that the evidence did not show that “Roberto Apongan and Teodorico Paraiso actually participated in stabbing to death Mrs. Samulde. There is no evidence showing their presence at the scene of the incident. The presence of Teodorico walking along the National Irrigation road at Lagumbingan, about three to four hundred meters away from the house of Mrs. Samulde before the stabbing incident can hardly be considered being present at the scene of the crime.” With these findings and on the premise that “mere presence of an accused at the discussion of a conspiracy, even approval of it without any active participation in the same, is not enough for purposes of conviction,” the court acquitted Roberto Apongan and Paraiso for insufficiency of evidence.
“Even granting arguendo, that Celestino, Jr. did not see who actually stabbed Mrs. Samulde because the place where she was stabbed was allegedly dark, the fact that Celestino, Jr. saw only two persons whom he positively recognized as appellant and Revadona, both armed with knives, within the immediate vicinity of the scene of the crime before the commission thereof and that after Apongan and Revadona tried and failed to grab Celestino, Jr.’s head, Mrs. Samulde, who was just two steps behind her son, would subsequently lay mortally wounded, affords a reasonable basis to conclude that appellant and Revadona were the perpetrators of the crime. These established circumstances constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the appellant and his co-accused as the author of the crime. In effect, these proven and established circumstances are consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that appellant is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilt. Such circumstances will suffice conviction (People vs. Caneda, 12 SCRA 19).”[19]
Q Can you tell us who killed her?Such fear was definitely not unfounded since the accused were aware of his presence while they brutally cut short the life of their victim. Additionally, Accused Revadona was admittedly a member of the armed rebel group, New People’s Army, operating in Cotabato.[28] These circumstances must have surely compounded the fear felt by Celestino, Jr. It is the common behavior of people overcome by great fear, not only for their lives but also those of their loved ones, to choose to remain tight-lipped about an incident and suffer in silence, rather than to expose to risk their own safety and that of people whom they care for.[29] Thus, it was only three years after, at age fourteen and in his third year in high school, that Celestino, Jr. overcame his fear and decided to relate to his father what had actually happened that ill-fated evening when his mother was killed.
A Yes, Sir.
Q Who were the persons responsible for the killing of your mother?
A Jacinto Apongan and Ronald Revadona, Sir.
Q Were you present during the time when your mother was killed?
A Yes, Sir.
Q When was that when your mother was killed?
A At Lagumbingan, Midsayap, Cotabato, Sir.
Q About what time when she was killed?
A About 8:00 in the evening, Sir.
Q If Ronald Revadona is in the courtroom, can you point him to us?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Please point him now to the Court.
A (witness pointed to a person sitting on the bench for the accused, wearing blue t-shirt, who when asked of his name, answered: ‘I am Ronald Revadona’).
Q Who are the other persons whom you said, killed your mother?
A Jacinto Apongan, Sir.
Q If he is in the courtroom, can you point him also to us?
A Yes, Sir. (witness pointed to the other person sitting on the bench for the accused, beside Ronald Revadona, who when asked of his name, answered: ‘I am Jacinto Apongan.’
Q Why do you know Ronald Revadona?
A We were living in the same barrio, and I know him since our early childhood, Sir.
Q Why do you know also Jacinto Apongan?
A Because he is a resident of Lagumbingan, Midsayap, Cotabato, Sir.
Q Can you tell us who among the two stabbed your mother?
A The two of them, Sir.
Q What weapon did they used (sic) in killing your mother?
A A knife, Sir.
Q Who among the two was having a knife during that time?
A Both accused were armed with a knife, Sir.”[20]
The following declarations of the same witness, elicited by the defense counsel, Atty. Midpantao Adil, amplifies the correctness of Samulde, Jr.’s positive identification of appellant as one of the assailants:
Q When did you see the assailant, before the stabbing or after the stabbing?
A The assailant came from the place where there was light, whereas, we were on the dark portion where the ipil-ipil trees are located, Sir.
Q You were on the dark portion while the assailant was on the reflection of the light?
A Yes, Sir.
Q So, your mother was ambushed by Jacinto Apongan while he was on the area reflected by the bulb, is that what you want to tell the Honorable Court?
A Jacinto Apongan and Ronald Revadona were in the place where there was reflection of the light, Sir.
x x x x x x x x x
Q How far were you from the supposed assailant from (sic) the first time you noticed them?
A Around ten (10) meters away.
Q And immediately, at that distance, you recognized them?
A Yes, I recognized them because of the reflection of the light.”[21]
Celestino, Jr. did not waver in his testimony despite extensive and grueling questioning by the defense. He remained steadfast and consistent despite the defense counsel’s repetitive questions seemingly designed to confuse him. Following Atty. Adil’s examination, counsel for Accused Revadona, Atty. Visitacion Lavarias, again inquired on the light in the area where the incident happened, thus:
“Atty. Lavarias: You said there was an electric bulb inside the poultry house of (sic) that night of the incident on June 8, 1986, how big was that bulb?
A Small bulb, about 60 watts, Ma’am.”[22]
The young witness stood his ground in identifying Revadona and Apongan:
Q And since there was also obstructions (sic) between the poultry house and the place of the incident, naturally, you cannot see clearly the faces of the accused, Ronald Revadona and Jacinto Apongan?
A Yes, I recognized them because they came from the place where there was reflection of the bulb.”[23]
With the above clear and unwavering statements of the prosecution eyewitness, there remains no doubt in the mind of this Court that appellant was one of the perpetrators of the barbarous slaughtering of Victoria Samulde. We reiterate the well-entrenched rule that positive and categorical assertions of witnesses generally prevail over bare denials.[24] This doctrine becomes even stronger when there is no showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness. Denial and alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence bearing no weight in law.[25] Celestino, Jr. particularly falls within the doctrine repeatedly laid down by this Court: the fact that the principal witness is the victim’s son even lends credence to his testimony. His natural interest in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter him from implicating persons other than the culprits; otherwise, the conviction of the innocent would thereby grant immunity to the guilty.[26]
Delay in Reporting Identities of Assailants to Authorities
Celestino Samulde, Jr. was still at his pubescent age when he witnessed the tragic killing of his mother. Instead of immediately revealing the identity of the murderers, he kept it to himself for three probably disquieting and nightmarish years. This long silence though was explained plausibly.
“Court: Did you tell anyone what you saw during that incident when your mother was ambushed by Ronald Revadona and Jacinto Apongan?
A I know them as the persons responsible in the killing of my mother, but because of fear that they might kill me also, I was hesitant to report to the police.”[27]
Atty. Lavarias:
You said that you saw Ronald Revadona and Jacinto Apongan stabbed (sic) the victim, Victoria Samulde, was the stabbing simultaneously (sic) or one after the other?
A They were holding my mother when she was stabbed, Ma’am.
Q Was the stabbing simultaneous or one after the other or were they together in stabbing your mother?
A They were together in stabbing my mother, Ma’am.
Q What was the position of your mother when she was stabbed by the two accused?
A First her back was facing her assailant, but when they held my mother, her back was facing them.
Q And your mother was standing at that time when she was stabbed?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q And she was hit at her back?
A No, Ma’am, because they were holding my mother behind and then they stabbed her in front.
Q And what was the position of Ronald Revadona at that time when he stabbed your mother?
A These two accused were holding my mother when they stabbed her.
Q In other words, Ronald Revadona was behind your mother when they stabbed your mother?
A Yes, Ma’am.
Q How many times was your mother stabbed by the two accused?
A I cannot count because the stabbing was fast.
Q Would it be five times?
A Many times but maybe some stabs did not hit my mother.
Q And from the timeof (sic) the stabbing up to the time the two accused ran, were you present?
A Yes, I moved backward, but my eyes were focused on them.”[36]