341 Phil. 49; 94 OG No. 17, 2968 (April 27, 1998)
MELO, J.:
That on or about the 10th day of April, 1991, in the municipality of Baliuag, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, armed with chisel and screw driver, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence, intimidation, take rob and carry away with them one (1) Sony Betamax worth P9,000.00, assorted jewelries worth P300,000.00 and cash amounting to P100,000.00, belonging to Sps. Dr. Delfin Tolentino and Eugenia Lindain-Tolentino, to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the total amount of P409,000.00; and on the occasion of the commission of the said robbery, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, and with intent to kill one Eugenia Lindain-Tolentino, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with evident premeditation and treachery, attack, assault and stab with the said chisel and screw driver the said Eugenia Lindain-Tolentino, hitting the latter of her body thereby causing her serious physical injuries which directly caused her death and also causing physical injuries to Dr. Delfin Tolentino which required medical attendance for some period of time.Initially, only Santiago was apprehended, and after the trial was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. A partial decision dated December 23, 1991 convicting him was promulgated on February 3, 1992. Herein accused-appellant Fernandez remained at large and was arrested by elements of the Philippine National Police-Baliuag only on January 28, 1993 (p. 18, Ibid.).
Contray to Law.
Malolos, Bulacan, April 30, 1991.
(pp. 5, 17 Rollo)
Q: How far or how near were you then from that person who wants to consult you as physician at that time that you saw that person?Verily, Dr. Delfin Tolentino’s categorical, clear, and consistent answers during the intensive cross-examination all the more indicated that he possessed all the faculties required of a qualified witness, that he was telling the truth, and that his declaration and answers established, beyond reasonable doubt, the identity of the perpetrators of the crime:
A: Probably 3-4 feet, Sir.
(p. 17, TSN, March 22, 1993)
Q: Before you were actually over-powered, your eyes were covered with masking tape, were you able to recognize that person who according to you consulted you for medical treatment?
A: Yes, Sir. He was very near to me and I was able to see him very well.
Q: If that person is present in court, can you identify him, point to him?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Please look around before this courtroom and tell us if that person is present?
A: Yes, Sir.
Interpreter:
Witness pointed to a detention prisoner, in uniform and who then asked of his name, answered Fernando Fernandez.
(pp. 18-19, Ibid.)
Q: At the time they were trying to open the safe, how far of how near were you from them?
A: They were just very near me, probably around 1 to 2 feet, Sir.
Q: Can you tell us who was the person who first attempted to open the safe?
A: At first, Fernando Fernandez, Sir (Witness pointing to accused Fernando Fernandez).
Q: And what was the other person doing then when this Fernando Fernandez was first trying open the safe or vault?
A: He was just standing beside me, Sir.
(pp. 23-24, Ibid.)
Q: Now, Mr. Witness, you testified a while ago that a person tried to enter your clinic posing as a patient; now where was the person whom you said tried to pose as a patient when you first saw him on April 10, 1991?The Court thus sees no ground to reverse the trial court’s judgment in regard to accused-appellant’s guilt. It is settled doctrine that in matters such as credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial courts, unless material and substantial facts have gone unnoticed by that latter, the reason being the trial court, having had the first-hand opportunity to observe the witnesses’ deportment and manner testifying during the trial, is in a better position to assess their credibility (People vs. Eduardo Ligotan y Fabella, G.R. No. 119219, September 30, 1996). However, the trial court committed an error in convicting accused-appellant of the crime of robbery with homicide and physical injuries. The appealed judgment should be modified in that the crime committed by accused-appellant should simply be robbery with homicide, since physical injuries committed during or on occasion of the robbery are absorbed therein, regardless of the number of homicides and physical injuries committed (People vs. Pamintuan, 222 SCRA 716, 722 [1993]).
A: He was just outside the clinic, Sir.
Q: And, you were inside the clinic, Mr. Witness?
A: And, he was outside the clinic.
Q: Was your clinic made of concrete materials?
A: Mixed materials, Sir.
Q: Was there any window at that time, Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, Sir. That is how I saw Fernando Fernandez, through the window.
Q: And, the window is made of glass, Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, Sir, but the window was opened.
Q: Was there any cover in that window to protect the occupant inside the clinic from sunlight?
A: There was none, Sir.
Q: And, you said that person who posed as a patient was how far from you, Mr Witness?
A: Probably around 2 to 3 feet, Sir.
Q: And after you conversed with that person outside the clinic, Mr witness, you decided to open the door of your clinic, is that correct?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And, after you opened the door of your clinic, you said your eyes were immediately covered by masking tape?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And, from that time on until you said the vault was opened by you, your eyes were covered by masking tape?
A: When I opened the safe, they removed the cover already and they put my eyeglasses.
Q: By the way, Mr Witness, when you were conversing with that person whom you said posed as a patient, you were not wearing your eyeglasses at that time, Mr witness?
A: I was wearing my eyeglasses already.
Q: Now, Mr. Witness, can you still see me clearly?
A: Yes, Sir, very clear, I can see you. You have your eyeglasses, you are “gwapo”.
Atty. Vargas:
Thank you.
Court:
Make it if record that the distance between the witness and the defense counsel is about 2½ meters, more or less, as stipulated by the parties.
(pp. 38-41, Ibid.).
Q: Now, Mr. Witness, when you said you were in your room, the masking tape that covers your eyes were removed?
A: Removed, Sir and they put my eyeglasses on.
Q: And, at that time, where was Joel Santiago?
A: At my right side, Sir. Fernando was in front of me.
Q: But when the masking tape was removed, the first person you saw was Joel Santiago, is that correct, Mr. Witness?
A: No, Sir, Fernando Fernandez.
Q: Now, how far was Fernando Fernandez from you Mr Witness?
A: It is only around two (2) feet, Sir.
Q: Was his face towards you or his back towards you?
A: He was in front of me; he was facing me.
Q: Now, how about Joel Santiago, what was he doing at that time, Mr. Witness?
Prosecutor:
The question is vague, Your Honor.
Atty. Vargas:
...at the time you were in front of your safe and the masking tape was removed?
A: They were ransacking the contents of the safe and they got what they wanted.
Q: So, you said they were ransacking the safe; you mean the 2 persons Mr. Witness?
A: Fernando Fernandez was the one who removed the tape of my eyes, Sir.
Q: So, Fernando Fernandez was at your back at that time?
A: No, Sir. He was in front; I was in front. He could remove it like that.
Q: And after that, they went to your safe?
A: Yes, Sir. We were already in front of the safe.
Q: How far were you from the safe when the masking tape was removed?
A: Probably around 2 feet or more than one foot.
Q: And, Fernando Fernandez, how far was he from the safe?
A: Only around 2 feet, Sir.
Q: And, you said they were ransacking the safe how far were you from the safe?
A: Around 2 feet, Sir.
Q: When they were ransacking the safe?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: The safe was in front of you Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, Sir almost.
Q: So, when they were ransacking the safe, their backs were towards you?
A: No, Sir. Fernando was just in front of me and Joel was on my right side, very near, that is why I could see both of them clearly.
Q: How long were you able to see the accused Fernando Fernandez, Mr. Witness?
Prosecutor:
On that particular moment, while they were ransacking the safe?
Court:
Specify:
Atty. Vargas:
…at the time the masking tape was removed from your eyes?
A: Probably around 15 minutes, Sir.
(pp. 45-48, Ibid.)