348 Phil. 246
PANGANIBAN, J.:
“That on or about the 9th day of May, 1988 in the Municipality of Pastrana, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, stab and wound one Ernesto Flores, Sr. with deadly weapons locally known as ‘sundang’ which the accused had provided themselves for the purpose, thereby hitting and inflicting upon said Ernesto Flores, Sr. several wounds on the different parts of his body which wounds caused his death.”[2]On January 15, 1990, the accused were arraigned in the Waray dialect which they understood and spoke. Assisted by Counsel Benjamin Pore, both pleaded not guilty.[3] After due trial, the trial court[4] rendered a decision,[5] the dispositive portion of which reads:
Contrary to law.”
“WHEREFORE, this Court finds each of the accused Abraham and Sergio, both surnamed ‘Bato’ GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. With the abolition of the capital punishment in 1987 Constitution, the penalty of Murder should now be Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period to Reclusion Perpetua. In the absence of any modifying circumstances, the penalty imposable is in its medium period or from EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY TO TWENTY (20) YEARS.Both accused appealed to the Court of Appeals. On January 26, 1994, the said Court promulgated the assailed Decision affirming their guilt but increasing the penalty to reclusion perpetua in view of this Court’s rulings in People vs. Benitez, Jr.[7] and People vs. Muñoz[8] . Pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court,[9] the appellate court, instead of entering judgment, certified the case to the Supreme Court in this wise:
“Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, they are each imposed the penalty of TEN (10) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Mayor as minimum to EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Reclusion Temporal as maximum with all the accessory penalties provided by law, to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased Ernesto Flores, Sr. in the sum of P50,000 and to pay the corresponding costs.”[6]
“WHEREFORE, since the crime for which the appellants were charged, tried and convicted is Murder, the penalty provided for by law is reclusion perpetua, within the power of the Supreme Court to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari (sec. 5-(2)-(d), Art. 8, 1987 Const.), this criminal case is hereby certified to the Supreme Court.”[10]In a Resolution dated June 29, 1994, this Court (First Division) informed the parties that they may file additional briefs. Conformably, the parties complied with said Resolution within the extended period granted them.[11]
“On May 9, 1988 at about three o’clock in the afternoon, Ernesto Flores, Jr. together with his father Ernesto Flores, Sr., were going home from Barangay Tingib, Pastrana, Leyte to San Agustin, Jaro, Leyte. While passing by Barangay Hibucawan, they were called by the two appellants, Abraham and Sergio, both surnamed Bato, to join them in a drinking spree in the house of Paran Lescabo, which Ernesto, Sr. accepted. Ernesto, Jr. sat about two (2) meters away from his father while the latter joined appellants for two hours drinking tuba. When his father was already drunk, appellants tied him (father) with his hands placed at the back. Later, he saw appellants bring his father to somewhere else. Seeing his father being held, he ran away, as he was afraid he would also be taken by appellants (tsn, 6-18-90, pp. 3-10).
It was only the following morning that they found his father already dead at the Binaha-an River, five kilometers away from the place where he last saw him in the previous afternoon. He immediately reported the incident to the Barangay Captain of Barangay Tingib. The latter informed the police department about the incident. Many policemen responded and the dead body of his father was brought to the Municipal Building of Pastrana, Leyte (tsn, 6-18-0, pp. 10-11).
At the Municipal Building of Pastrana, Leyte, the Municipal Health Officer, Dr. Virisimo Opiniano, conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased Ernesto Flores, Sr. He found that the deceased sustained five hacking and seven stab wounds. The cause of death is shock, secondary to a hacking and almost decapitating wound (Exhibit ‘A’ and ‘B’).”[16]
“Ernesto’s testimony is clear. He pointed to and positively identified Abraham Bato and Sergio Bato as the persons who invited his father to drink with them while he and his father passed by Barangay Hibucawan. His father accepted the invitation and[,] with them for two hours[,] drank tuba at the house of Lescabo. All the while, Ernesto sat there about two meters away from his father. He saw his father drunk, and, under that condition, also saw Abraham and Sergio tied [sic] his father’s hand with a rope and placed [sic] them at the back, then they brought him away with them, to what direction, ‘I do not know because I ran as I was also afraid’ as ‘they might bring me also.’ He learned of his father’s death on the following day, that they found him at the Binaha-an River, about 5 kilometers away from the house of Paran Lescabo. Ernesto added on cross-examination that after his father was taken by the duo, he went homeward, arrived there at about 6:00 p.m., told the incident to his mother, then they slept and that ‘it was only the following morning when they look for his father’; that he and his mother reported the incident to the Barangay Captain of Tingib, and together with the barangay captain, they found his father dead at the Binaha-an River, and then they reported the incident to the police authorities.”[21]Like the trial court, the appellate court found that Ernesto Jr. “positively identified” the Bato brothers as the killers of his father and could not have been mistaken, as he had known them long before the commission of the offense, a fact not rebutted by the defense.
“I. The lower court erred in finding that there was positive identification of the accused-appellants.In his additional brief[24] submitted before this Court, Appellant Abraham Bato further contends that the appellate tribunal gravely erred in increasing to reclusion perpetua the penalty imposed by the trial court
II. The lower court erred in finding that accused-appellants employed treachery in the commission of the offense.”
“Q | What happened since you said you were at Tingib at about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of May 9, 1988? |
A | When we passed by Hibucawon, they called my father for a drink. |
Q | This Brgy. Hibucawon belongs to what municipality? |
A | Jaro, Leyte. |
PROSECUTOR DAGANDAN: | |
Q | You said that they called your father, who is this “they” you referred to? |
A | Abe Bato and Sergio Bato. |
Q | Where were Abraham Bato and Sergio Bato when they called your father? |
A | They were drinking in the house of Paran. |
Q | Do you know the real name of this Paran? |
A | I only know him as Paran. |
Q | What is his family name? |
A | Loscabo. |
Q | Where is this house of Paran Loscabo located? |
A | Barangay Hibucawon, Jaro, Leyte. |
Q | In what manner was your father called by Abe Bato and Sergio Bato? |
A | They called my father to a drink. |
Q | What did your father do? |
A | He approached Sergio Bato and Abe Bato, and he drank because he was offered to drink. |
Q | Where were you when your father was called by Sergio Bato and Abe Bato? |
A | I was near. |
PROSECUTOR DAGANDAN: | |
Q | Where were you when your father was called, at what distance were you to your father? |
A | About two (2) meters (from the witness stand). |
Q | Did you come to know if there were other persons present aside from your father and the two accused? |
A | Yes, but I do not know them. |
Q | Approximately, how many persons were present who were gathered? |
A | They were many persons. |
Q | Approximately, how many? |
A | More than ten (10). |
Q | Since you said you were near your father when you approached them, what did Abraham Bato and Sergio Bato got to do with your father when your father approached them? |
A | They first offered my father a drink. |
Q | Whay drink was offered? |
A | Tuba. |
Q | Did your father accept the offer? |
A | Yes, ma’am |
Q | For how long did he stay in that group? |
A | He stayed long. |
Q | How about you, where did you stay while your father was drinking? |
A | I was at a certain distance but I did not get near them. |
Q | At about what time did the drinking spree last? |
A | Two (2) hours. |
Q | After two hours, what happened, if any? |
A | When my father was already drank, they tied my father. |
Q | Who tied your father? |
A | Abe Bato and Sergio Bato. |
Q | With what object or material was your father tied? |
A | Rope. |
Q | How was your father tied with the rope? |
A | They tied him with a rope and both hands were placed at the back. |
Q | After that, what happened? |
A | They brought my father. |
Q | Who is this “they” who brought your father? |
A | Abe Bato and Sergio Bato. |
Q | How did you come to know that your father was brought somewhere? |
A | I saw them bringing my father. |
Q | To what directions was your father brought? |
A | I do not know because I ran away as I was afraid. |
Q | Immediately before you ran away, where was your father. |
A | They were bringing and holding my father. |
Q | You said you were afraid, why were you afraid? |
A | I was afraid because they might bring me also. |
Q | Did you come to know what happened to your father? |
A | I learned the following day that my father died because they brought him.” |
“Furthermore, if indeed the two (2) Castro brothers were watching the cockfight when the alleged four (4) persons attacked Pat. Castro, it is quite difficult to comprehend that, considering that he (witness) was only six (6) meters away from his brother, nothing was done to him as he was able to run and hide. It seems out of the ordinary that the assailants, allegedly, two (2) of them armed with .45 caliber pistols would let Jennis Castro (an eye witness to the killing) loose and not put him out of the way. It is also quite unbelievable that despite his said distance, he (Jennis Castro) was able to identify the accused-appellant and was able to hear one of the assailants shout x x x.In People vs. Ragon[34] there was no actual witness to the killing of a tricycle driver, but appellant therein, with two others, was identified as the last passenger of the victim before the cadaver was found hours later. Relying on purely circumstantial evidence, the trial court convicted the appellant of murder. On appeal, this Court acquitted him. Holding that there was no sufficient evidence to establish his actual participation in the killing, we concluded:
In addition to the above extrajudicial statements of Jennis Castro, the trial court considered the following circumstantial evidence in convicting the appellant Lambujon, to with: his presence at the house of one of the accused during the raid, the revolver of Pat. Castro which was allegedly found in accused-appellant’s possession during the raid; positive testimony of Jennis Castro that the one who fired the second shot was the one wearing a blue T-shirt. We do not agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the aforecited evidence are corroborative of Jennis Castro’s incriminating testimony against the accused-appellant. Circumstantial evidence may be characterized as that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference. This Court cannot infer from said evidence, the identity of the victim’s assailant nor the actual participation of the appellant Lambujon in the crime charged.”[33]
“Circumstantial evidence is akin to a tapestry made up of strands which create a pattern when interwoven, and cannot be plucked out and considered one strand at a time independently of the others. If the picture does not point to the accused as the perpetrator of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction based thereon will not weather judicial scrutiny. A painstaking review of the records of this case convinces us that the story pieced together by the trial court from the evidence of the prosecution provides no moral certainty of appellant’s guilt. x x x.”[35]Presumption of Innocence
“Whenever the Court of Appeals should be of the opinion that the penalty of reclusion perpetua or higher should be imposed in a case, the Court after discussion of the evidence and the law involved, shall render judgment imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua or higher as the circumstances warrant, refrain from entering judgment and forthwith certify the case and elevate the entire record thereof to the Supreme Court for review.”[10] CA Decision, p. 10; CA Rollo.
“Brgy. Capt. Alfredo Samson, of Brgy, Tinib, this MPLTY reported to the Office that person was found dead in the Binaha-an River, Brgy Tingib. A Patrol lead [sic] by OIC Pfc B. Montanejos, Pat F. Sales and Pat Arnulfo Tan, proceeded to the crime scene and said dead person was identified by the Brgy. inhabitants to be one Ernesto Flores 60 years of age, married and a resident of Brgy. San Agustin, Jaro, Leyte, subject was killed w/ the use of long bolos, suspects was still unknown.” (Page no. 007; Entry No. 1259; Dated May 10, 1988, and Time 1153H)[19] TSN, November 6, 1990, p. 5.