377 Phil. 862
YNARES_SANTIAGO, J.:
“That on or about July 14, 1992, in the Municipality of Sara, province of Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another armed with firearms, with deliberate intent and decided purpose to kill by means of treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot Crisanto Suarez y Dangan with the firearm which one of the accused was then provided, inflicting gunshot wounds on the victim’s brain and cervical spine which caused his death immediately thereafter.Upon arraignment, accused assisted by counsel, entered a plea of “not guilty” to the crime charged.[2]
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, there being sufficient proof establishing the guilt of the accused, Jose Biñas alias “Nestor Biñas”, of the crime of murder with which he is charged beyond the shadow of doubt, he is hereby pronounced guilty thereof and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and the accessory penalties as provided in Article 41 of the Revised Penal Code, and he is also directed to indemnify the family of the victim the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs.Dissatisfied, accused interposed this appeal alleging that –
SO ORDERED.”
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF EMMA SUAREZ AND CRIS SUAREZ, SAID TESTIMONIES BEING INCREDIBLE INSOFAR AS THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS CONCERNED.III
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING ANY CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE AND IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED.
“About 9:00 o’clock in the evening of July 13, 1992, Crisanto Suarez, his wife Emma, and their seven (7) children were all asleep at their house in Sara, Iloilo, when they heard a man beckoning from outside.[4] The man was calling for Crisanto, saying “Agi, come out here, you are hiding some firearm[s]”[5] Crisanto kept silent, but Emma prodded him to go out and check who was it.[6] Crisanto then got up, went out and knelt beside a table to light a kerosene lamp.[7] As he was lighting the lamp, a man suddenly appeared and shot him on the face.[8] Emma saw the face of the gunman who quickly went out and fled with two (2) other companions who were waiting outside.[9] Their son Cris gave chase, but to no avail.[10] They brought Crisanto to the hospital, but he was declared “dead on arrival.”[11]Accused-appellant gave a conflicting account of what happened. He denied having perpetrated the charge against him averring that he does not know the victim and that he only came to know the victim’s wife when he was already arrested and put in jail.[14] As culled from his testimony, as early as July 1984, he fled Barangay Pasig, Sara, Iloilo and went to Alicia, Zamboanga del Sur to avoid reprisal for shooting one Tony Apaso.[15] In Alicia, accused-appellant stayed with his uncle Eulogio Tilog for nearly a year helping the latter harvest palay and other crops.[16] It was sometime in 1985 that he started cultivating a two-hectare farm, also located in Alicia, Zamboanga del Sur which belonged to Rudy Castor.[17] Since he went to Zamboanga del Sur, accused-appellant never went to Sara and was visited on two occasions by his wife in Alicia particularly in 1988 and 1990.[18]
A few days after the incident, Police officer Rene Castillo of the Iloilo PNP, went to the Suarez home and asked Emma to go with him to the Sara police headquarters to identify the man suspected of killing her husband.[12] At the police station, Emma positively identified Jose Biñas alias “Nestor Biñas” as the same person who shot and killed Crisanto.[13]”
Emma Suarez remained steadfast and unyielding on cross-examination with regard to her identification of accused-appellant as the gunman who fired at her husband despite repeated attempts of defense counsel to throw her off track and to impeach her credibility:
“DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. JEROME PADIOS: Q - You mentioned earlier that you were at your residence at Barangay Sara, Iloilo at 9:00 o’clock in the evening. My question is, who were your companions at that time? A - My husband and my seven children. Q - What is the name of your husband? A - Crisanto Suarez. Q - On that particular date and time, did you notice something unusual that happened in your residence? A - There was an incident that took place. Q - Tell us what was that?
A - An incident took place in our house. A man entered our house. Q - What did this person do when he entered your house? A - He called for my husband. Q - When you say your husband, you are referring to Crisanto Suarez? A - Yes, sir. Q - What was it uttered by the person who called your husband? A - He called my husband saying, “Agi, come out from there. You are hiding some firearm.” Q - Who is this “Agi” referred to?
A - Crisanto Suarez, my husband. Q - What was the reply, if any, by your husband? A - My husband kept silent. Q - What else happened after that? A - It was I who answered, “Noy, just go out from there.” When my husband went out, he lighted a lamp. Q - Was your husband able to light a lamp? A - He was able to light the lamp but simultaneously, there was an explosion and the light of the lamp was put out. Q - What kind of light was that lighted by your husband?
A - A Kerosene lamp. Q - Did you know what was the result of that explosion? A - My husband was shot. Q - You said that this person entered your house. Were you able to recognize that person? A - I was able to identify his face but not his name. Q - How were you able to recognize his face that night? A - Because the moon was bright. Q - Aside from the moon which you said was bright at that time you saw that person who shot your husband, tell us, was there any illumination that provided you? A - Yes, there was a lamp. Q - What was that?
A - A Kerosene lamp. Q - How far were you from your husband when your husband was shot? A - Only near. Q - Will you please estimate how far? A - (Witness is illustrating a distance of about half a meter). Q - You said you were able to identify the face of that person who shot your husband, if you see the man who shot your husband, will you be able to identify him? A - Yes, I can identify him. Q - If that person is inside the Courtroom, can you identify him? A - He, Nestor Biñas. (Witness pointing to a person inside the Courtroom who upon being asked identifies himself as Nestor Biñas). Q - At the time your husband was shot by the person whom you identify inside the Courtroom, what was the position of your husband when he was shot?
A - He was kneeling in the act of lighting our lamp. Q - After your husband was shot, what did this person whom you identify as Nestor Biñas do? A - He ran out. Q - How about you, what did you do? A - I shouted for help. Q - Aside from shouting for help, what else did you do? A - We went down and sought help from outside. Q - Was there any help that come after that shooting incident? A - Yes, sir. Q - How long after did help come?
A - After twenty minutes later. Q - You mentioned that you were together with your children that night. Tell us what are the names of your children? A - Cristina, Criselda, Cris, Cristobal, Crisanto, Jr., Caren and Bralyn. Q - That night when the incident happened, tell us if you know where this Crisanto Suarez is? A - He was lying on the extension of the window sill known as “Berha”. Q - You also mentioned that you were just around one-meter away from your husband when he was shot by this Nestor Biñas. Tell us what kind of firearm was used in shooting your husband? A - A short firearm. Q - Do you know a firearm locally known as “Pugakhang?” A - Yes, sir. Q - The firearm used by the accused in shooting your husband, how was that locally known?
A - It was a short firearm. (Witness illustrating a length of about 6 to 7 inches). Q - Will you please describe the appearance of that firearm? A - It was a short black firearm. Q - How about the nozzle of the firearm, will you please describe it? A - It was not so small, just enough for the bullet to go out. Q - At the time the incident happened, does Nestor Biñas have any companion? A - It was only Nestor Biñas I saw inside. His two other companions were there outside. Q - How were you able to know that this Nestor Biñas have companions outside? A - Because I saw them. Q - When did you see this two other companions of Nestor Biñas before the shooting incident or after the shooting incident when Nestor Biñas ran away.
A - When they ran. Q - Where were you at the time when you saw these two other companions of Nestor Biñas? A - I was at the window. Q - Aside from this Nestor Biñas and his two other companions, have you noticed of anybody else outside your house at that time? A - It was only the three of them I saw outside and ran. Q - How about this Cris, your son. After the incident were you able to see him? A - I saw our son Cris go out of our door and followed the man who shot his father. Q - When Cris, your son, followed the man who shot his father, what else happened? A - The man looked back and aim his firearm at him, so Cris hid behind a tree. ATTY. ARUNGAYAN:
At this juncture, Your Honor, I would like to manifest that the answer of the witness be stricken out of the record. That is merely hearsay. COURT: Let the witness answer. That is what she saw. Q - What about the group of Nestor Biñas after your son Cris hid behind a tree, what else happened? A - They ran away. Q - That night, were you able to bring the body of the victim to the hospital? A - Yes, we did. Q - Was he able to reach the hospital? A - Yes, sir. Q - Will you tell us what happened to your husband when he reached the hospital? A - The doctor said he was already dead.”[45]
Cris Suarez, the other prosecution eyewitness continued where Emma Suarez’ testimony left off testifying as follows on direct examination:
“CROSS EXAMINATION BY ATTY. ALFREDO ARUNGAYAN: Q - Mrs. Suarez, you testified earlier that you saw the man who shot your husband and you could recognize his face although you do not know his name, is that correct? A- Yes, sir. Q - So you want to tell the Court that it is only now that you actually know when you heard the name of the person who shot your husband to be Nestor Biñas? A- I had already come to know him while still there in our place. Q - When? A - For a long time already. Q - When you say for a long time, was it on July 15, 1992? A - Yes. Q - How did you come to know the name of the person who shot your husband to be Nestor Biñas on July 15, 1992? A - Although I knew his face already, it was not until the policeman told me it was the person who was in jail and I went to see him and I was able to identify that his name was Nestor Biñas. Q - And the police that you refer to was Rene del Castillo?
A - Yes, sir. Q - Did you know that the parents of this Rene del Castillo is the complainant of this Nestor Biñas for trespassing to dwelling? A - It was only later that I came to know that. Q - Mrs. Suarez, do you also know that the real name of this Nestor Biñas is Jose Biñas, Nestor Biñas only being his alias? A - I did not know his name to be Jose. I just know him to be Nestor Biñas. Q - And it was only on that day July 15, 1992 that you knew him to Nestor Biñas? A - Yes, sir. FISCAL BARRIOS: I think, at this juncture, because according too (sic) the defense counsel, the real name of Nestor Biñas is Jose Biñas, and that Nestor Biñas is only his alias, we have to ask the accused what is his real name. COURT:
Let the accused come over. COURT: Q - What is your real name?` A - Jose Biñas. Q - This Nestor Biñas is only your alias name? A - Yes, Your Honor. COURT: Alright, the motion of the prosecution for the proper correction of the name of the accused is granted. Let the record reflect that the true name of the accused is Jose Biñas and [that] Nestor Biñas is merely his alias. ATTY. ARUNGAYAN: May I proceed, Your Honor. COURT:
Counsel may proceed. xxx xxx xxxQ - This house of yours in barangay Pasig, what kind of house is this? Is it made of concrete material or is it made of bamboo? A - Nipa and bamboo. Q - And, how many stories has your house? A - Only one. Q - When you say it is only a one-story house, is that elevated from the ground? A - Yes, sir. COURT: Q - How high is the elevation from the ground? A - About 3 feet from the ground. ATTY. ARUNGAYAN:
Q - Now, this house of yours has it rooms? A - It has only one bedroom. Q - And, you and your husband are sleeping on (sic) that bedroom? A - Outside. The children are the one’s (sic) who sleep inside the bedroom. Q - You said that that evening of July 14, 1992 there were persons who went to your house and the accused Jose alias Nestor Biñas was able to enter your house, is that correct? A - Yes, sir. Q - Where did this Nestor Biñas pass through in entering your house? A - Through the door. Q - Main door of the house or back door of the house? A - Main door of the house. Q - And he was actually able to enter the house itself?
A - Yes, sir. Q - You recall in connection with this case [that] you executed an affidavit on August 18, 1993, do you remember that? A - Yes, sir. Q - Now, in your affidavit or sworn statement, you mentioned here that that evening of July 14, 1992 you heard a voice looking for your husband, to wit : “Diin si Agi ?” Now the same person said, to wit : “May armas kano nga ginatago.” Then, he told us again, to wit : “Kon hindi ka mag-gwa, madalahig ang mga bata sa sulod.” Do you recall having said that in your sworn statement? A - Yes, sir. Q - Now, since in this statement of yours that person was asking your husband to come out of the house, do you understand correctly then that the person who was uttering those words was outside your house? A - He was inside the house. Q - I will clarify. You and your husband are sleeping outside of that room because according to you, it was your children who was (sic) sleeping inside the room, is that correct? A - Yes, sir. Q - In other words, you and your husband were sleeping in the sala of your house, is that correct?
A - Yes, sir. Q - And that place in the sala where you and your husband are sleeping, how far is that from the main door of your house? A - From the place where they were sleeping to the main door is three and a half meters away, more or less. Q - And that person who entered your house was already actually inside your house when he uttered these words, and I quote again in the dialect: “Diin si Agi? May armas kano nga ginatago. Kon hindi kamo mag-gwa, madalahig ang mga bata sa sulod.” These words was (sic) uttered by Nestor Biñas when he was already inside your house? A - Yes, sir. Q - And then, you were also sleeping inside your house when the accused in a distance of three and a half meters away from you and your husband uttered those words? A - Yes, sir. COURT: Q - In reference to the main door of the house, where was that accused when he uttered those words? A- He was there. (Witness posting herself by the door with her back obliquely towards the main door when she was calling for Agi) ATTY. ARUNGAYAN:
Q - And that was the time there was a kerosene lamp lighted inside the sala of your house? A - There already was a lamp which we were lighting and which he brushed aside and which fell from where we were placing it and so, its light went out. Q - By the way, that kerosene lamp where was that situated in relation to you and your husband? A - It was on top of the table far from us. Q - About how many meters from you, more or less? A - A distance of about three and a half meters away. COURT: Q - In relation to the door, where was the table situated where the lamp was put? A - Far from the door. (Witness illustrating the distance from the main door to the table where the lamp was placed about three and a half meters in line with the main door) Q - Which came first, the accused uttering these words that he said or the brushing aside of that lamp? A – The first that took place was the uttering of the words, diin si Agi . . . and the brushing aside of the light. Q - Immediately after?
A - Yes, sir. Q - At that time, when this person whom you said is the accused uttered these words, Diin si Agi, etc., that was the time you were awakened and knew the person of the accused inside the house or were you already awake before that? A - I had already awakened before that. Q - Since you had already awakened when this accused spoke, were you able to notice when the accused entered your house or were you already awakened when the accused was already inside your house? A - He was already inside the house when I noticed. Q - Was your husband also awake when you noticed the presence of the accused inside your house or was your husband still asleep? A - He was also awake. Q - By the way, that lamp which was on top of the table, the light coming from the kerosene lamp on the table reached the place where you and your husband was or were lying down such that you and your husband can be seen clearly? A - Yes, sir. Q - Were you using a mosquito net?
A - Yes, sir. Q - Now, despite of the (sic) presence of the mosquito net you can still be seen clearly inside the mosquito net? ATTY. PADIOS: I object . . . COURT: Sustained. COURT: Q - While you were inside the mosquito net, can you see the person outside particularly when he is near the door? A - I removed the mosquito net and he could be seen from under. Q - What do you mean when you say that after getting the mosquito net you can see him form under. Where is that under you refer [to]? A - Below, under the house. Q - You mean that the accused went under your house?
A- Our house has a stairway and then, there is an elevated floor. We were sleeping on the sala.”[46]
Cris Suarez likewise remained consistent and unwavering that he saw the gunman despite being subjected to a gruelling cross-examination by defense counsel:
“Q - Now, on July 14, 1992 at 10:00 in the evening where were you? A - I was inside our house. Q - Where is this house of yours located? A - In Asi. Q - What municipality? A - Sara, Iloilo. xxx xxx xxxQ - At 9:00 in the evening, tell us if you have noticed anything in your residence on July 14 1992? A - Yes, sir. Q - What was that? A - A man entered our house. xxx xxx xxx
Q - When he entered, what else did he do? A - He blew out the lamp on the table. Q - At that time where were you exactly inside your house? A - On the extended portion of the window sill where I was lying. ATTY. ARUNGAYAN: “Berja” is usually known for grills in windows and other opening[s] of the house, your Honor. COURT: Clarrify (sic) that. The court wants to known (sic) what he means by grill or grills or sill which serve as window sill. ATTY. PADIOS: Q - When you said “berja”, please tell us what do you mean by “Berja”? A – It is a kind of flooring. COURT:
Q - Where is this “berja” or flooring situated? A - It is inside our house. Q - Which part of the house is that situated? A - Near the door. COURT: Proceed. ATTY. PADIOS: Q - When this person entered your house and put off the light, what did you do after that? A - He called for father. Q - When he called your father, what did he tell your father?
A - He said, “Agi, may armas ka?” (Agi do you have firearms?) Q - And what did your father do? A - Father did not answer right away. He remained silent for some time. Q - And what did this person do when he called your father and your father did not answer? A - He said, “If you do not go down from there, your children will be involed (sic).” Q - And what did your father do after hearing that plea of the person who enrered (sic) your house? A - He said, “Migs, let us light the lamp first so that it will be bright. Q - Was your father able to light the lamp he was referring to? A - Yes, sir. Q - Where was that lamp situated during that time?
A - On the door. xxx xxx xxxQ - The door you are referring to where the lamp is situated and which was lighted by your father, was it situated on the ground floor or second floor? A - Upstairs. Q - Do you know where your father and mother were sleeping at that time? A - Yes, sir. Q - Whereat? A - Upstairs. xxx xxx xxxQ - After your father lighted the lamp at the door at the second floor of your house, hat happened next?
A - He shot father. Q - Who shot your father? A - That man who entered. Q - Was your father hit? A - Yes, sir. Q - Whereat? A - On his left face. (Witness pointing to his left face near the nose.) Q - What about that man, what did he do after shooting your father? A - He ran. Q - And what did you do?
A - I followed. Q - Were you able to catch up with him? A - No, sir. Q - Why? A - Because he pointed his gun at me. Q - When he pointed his gun at you, was he inside the house or outside the house? A - Outside the house. Q - Because this person pointed this gun at you what did you do? A - I hid beside the tree. Q - You said this person, when he entered your house, destroyed the door of your house? Tell us, were you able to see this person?
A - Yes, sir. Q - When he shot your father, were you able to see him? A - Yes, sir. Q - Can you still recognize his face if you can see him? A - Yes, sir. Q - If he is inside the court room, will you please point to him? A - Yes, sir. That man there, at the back of the other man. (Witness pointing to a person inside the courtroom who when asked identified himself as Jose Biñas.)”[47]
He stood firm in his testimonial declarations despite being grilled by the trial court itself and asked additional questions by defense counsel:
“ATTY. ARUNGAYAN: Q - Mr. Suarez, you said that this house of yours is composed of two (2) storeys. Please tell the Court how high is the second storey of your house from the ground? A - About this high. (Witness illustrating a height of about five (5) feet and five (5) inches from the floor of the courtroom.) Q - In entering your house, do I understand that there are two (2) doors? A - Yes, sir. Q - There is a main door and another door which is presumably at the kitchen of your house? A - The other one is upstairs. xxx xxx xxxQ - Mr. Suarez, you said that that man entered your house through the side of the door. If you are facing that place, tell the Court, which side of the door did the man entered (sic)? Did he pass through the left side or at the right side of the door?
A - To the left side of the door. Q - You said that there was a lamp that was lighted that evening, where was that lamp placed? A - On top of the table. Q - And this table where was this located? Upon entering your house, where is that table in entering your house? A - Near the stairway. Q - You refer to the stairway, to what you call the stairway to the second floor of your house? A - Yes, sir. Q - That table where the lighted lamp was placed, how far is that from the main door upon entering your house? INTERPRETER: Witness illustrating a distance of about 3 ½ ft. from the door of the courtroom. COURT:
Was that lamp situated in front of the door or at the side of the door? A - On the side.[48] xxx xxx xxxATTY. ARUNGAYAN: Q - Mr. Suarez, in that position of the “berja as you described where you were lying. Where was your head leading to? Was it towards the door or towards the inside? A - My head was towards the door. Q - When that person entered your house, you were awake. Is that correct? A - Yes, sir. Q - By the way, that light which you said was on top of the table or a distance of 3 ½ meters from the door. Did the light of the kerosene lamp reach the place where you were lying down? A - Yes, sir. Q - And when that person entered your house, you saw him and he likewise saw you?
A - Yes, sir. COURT: Q - Actually, what were you doing when that man entered? A - I was awake. Q - Were you still lying, sitting or walking? A - I was lying on my side. COURT: Proceed. ATTY. ARUNGAYAN: Q - And you were facing towards the light on the table?
A - I was facing the door. Q - Which door? The main door of your house? A - I had my face towards the main door. xxx xxx xxxQ - When that man entered your house, did he simply say, “Agi, may armas ka da?” or did he say “Diin si Agi?” A - He asked, “Agi, do you have firearms?” Q - The place where your father Agi and your mother were lying in that sala on the second floor as you said, is that visible to the one who entered the house? A - No, sir. Q - They cannot be seen? A - Yes, sir. Q - Did I understand correctly from you that on the second floor there is a staircase?
A - Yes, sir. Q - And then going up the staircase, is there a shutter to the door and is that open? A - There is a shutter. Q - And that night, was that shutter close (sic) or open? A - Open. Q - When you said that your parents were sleeping on the doorway in going to the second floor, why did you say that they cannot be seen from the main door of the main house when one enters the house? A - There is still the wall. Q - There is no window? A - There is a window. Q - How many?
A - Three (3) windows. Q - Is there a window towards the main door of the main house? A - Yes, sir. xxx xxx xxxQ - When your father said, “Migs, anay ka, sindihan ta ang suga para masanag.” Where was your father? A - Near the door. Q - You refer to the door on the second floor? A - Yes, sir. Q - And where was this man who entered your house when your father said, “Migs, anay ka, sindihan ta ang suga para masanag.” Where was this man? A - On top of the stairs. Q - Now, Mr. Suarez, at the time your father said, those words, “Migs, anay ka sindihan ta ang suga para masanag”, that man was already on top of the stairs? You mean to say that he was already standing on the second floor?
A - He was standing on the top rung of the stairs. Q - At the time when your father said, “Migs, anay ka, sindihan ta ang suga para masanag.” What actually did your father do? A - He rose. Q - And what did he do after rising? A - He then lighted the lamp. xxx xxx xxxQ - Mr. Suarez, that “berja” where you were lying near the main door. Please tell the Court if you could see your father and mother lying down on the second floor? A - Yes, sir. xxx xxx xxx
COURT: Supposing that is the “berja” (referring to the table inside the courtroom) where you were lying on. Will you please show to the Court the place or portion of the “berja” near the door where your parents were lying at that time? A - The part of the floor where my parents were lying at that time can be seen directly from the “berja” where I was lying on.”[49]
In support of his defense accused-appellant notes certain inconsistencies in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses.
“COURT: Q - What was your distance from your father at the time he was shot by the accused? A - (Witness illustrating a distance of about 2 ½ meters away, more or less) Q - What was your father actually doing when he was shot by the accused? A - He was kneeling. Q - Aside from the fact that he was kneeling, was he doing anything else? A - He was lighting a lamp. Q - Was he able to light the lamp when he was shot? A - Yes, sir. Q - Now at that time did you identify by face the one who shot your father?
A - Yes, sir. Q - Now, you said that you followed the accused when he out of your house and then he pointed a gun at you. At the time the accused pointed the gun at you, what was your distance from him? A - (Witness illustrating a distance of about 5 to 6 meters more or less.) Q - Was there anything that obstruct[ed] your view from the accused when he was pointing the gun at you? A - No, Your Honor. Q - At that time, where were the other companions of Nestor Biñas? A - They had ran away (sic). xxx xxx xxxATTY. ARUNGAYAN:
xxx xxx xxxQ - Mr. Suarez, the person who shot your father was standing on the stairway going to the second story of the house at the time your father was shot, correct? A - Yes, sir. Q - Now, you were able to see this person standing … I will reform. Now, immediately after the shot was fired, this person who shot your father immediately ran away and you also ran out of the house, correct? A - Yes, sir. Q - And the kerosene lamp had just been lighted when that shot rang out which hit your father, is that correct? A - The lamp was already lighted. Q - Precisely, the lamp was already lighted but, it was just (sic) been lighted when the shot rang out, is that correct? A - Yes, sir. Q - As a matter of fact, when the shot rang out, that light was again put out, correct?
A - Yes, sir. Q - And so, it was dark all over again inside the house? A - Yes, sir. Q - By the way, you said that when this Nestor Biñas ran out from your house you followed him but he pointed a gun at you causing you to hid[e] behind a tree. But when asked by this Court you said there was nothing that obstruct[ed] or stop[ped] your way between you and Nestor Biñas when he pointed his gun at you? A - Yes, sir. Q - And, you said there was no obstruction? A - Yes, sir. Q - What about that tree behind which you were hiding, did that not obstruct your view from seeing Nestor Biñas? A - No, sir. ATTY. ARUNGAYAN:
That will be all with the witness. COURT: Q - You said there was a moon shining that night, is that correct? A - Yes, sir. Q - Where was the moon at the time? A - To the West. xxx xxx xxxATTY. PADIOS: Q - How big was the moon at the time? A - It was first quarter.”[50]
“Visibility is indeed a vital factor in the determination of whether or not an eyewitnesses could have identified the perpetrator of a crime. However, it is settled that when conditions of visibility are favorable, and the witnesses do not appear to be biased, their assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should normally be accepted.[62] Illumination produced by kerosene lamp or a flashlight is sufficient to allow identification of persons.[63] Wicklamps, flashlights, even moonlight or starlight may, in proper situations be considered sufficient illumination, making the attack on the credibility of witnesses solely on that ground unmeritorious.”[64]That Emma and Cris were able to recognize the gunman, can hardly be doubted because relatives of the victim have a natural knack for remembering the face of the assailant and they, more than anybody else, would be concerned with obtaining justice for the victim by the malefactor being brought to the face of the law.[65] Indeed, family members who have witnessed the killing of a loved one usually strive to remember the faces of the assailants.[66]
“… It has been our consistent ruling that minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the declarations of witnesses do not destroy the witnesses’ credibility but even enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony[70]… The witnesses testifying to the same event do not have to be consistent in every detail as differences in recollection or viewpoints or impressions are inevitable.[71] Indeed, if rights were to be lost merely because witnesses, while agreeing on the essential fact, fail to testify harmoniously on all the particulars, a very large proportion of cases involving wrongs would find no redress in law. Hence, variations in the testimony of witnesses on the same side in respect to minor, collateral, or incidental matters do not usually impair the weight of their united testimony to the prominent facts.”[72]In sum, the inconsistencies referred to by the defense are inconsequential. The points that mattered most in the eyewitnesses’ testimonies were their presence at the locus criminis, their identification of the accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime and their credible and corroborated narration of accused-appellant’s manner of shooting Crisanto Suarez. To reiterate, inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses that refer to insignificant details do not destroy their credibility. Such minor inconsistencies even manifest truthfulness and candor erasing any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[73] In further attempting to destroy his identification by the two eyewitnesses, accused-appellant insists that a policeman named Rene del Castillo who “was moving heaven and earth to see to it that accused-appellant is convicted”[74] orchestrated his identification. Accused-appellant claims that this policeman supplied his name to the eyewitnesses suggesting that accused-appellant, who was then already detained, was the gunman even going to the extent of telling Cris Suarez to point at him at the time he was in jail. Accused-appellant in effect says that his identification by the two eyewitnesses is doubtful because they did not know his name. As pointed out by this Court in People v. Verzosa:[75]
“This is puerile reasoning. Identification of a person is not established solely through the knowledge of the name of a person. Familiarity with physical features particularly those of the face, is actually the best way to identify a person. One may be familiar with the face but not necessarily the name. It does not follow, therefore, that to be able to identify a person, one must first know his name.[76] Moreover, it is completely illogical to equate and limit positive identification to a knowledge of the real names of the culprits since more often than not, robbers victimize people who are complete strangers to them and who do not know them by face or name purposely to avoid being recognized and positively identified.”At any rate, it can be readily seen from the quoted excerpts of the testimonies of Emma and Cris that the inconsistencies pointed out by accused-appellant hardly dents the unanimity and the uniformity of their declarations that he shot the victim in the face at close range. Given the foregoing fact, it has been ruled that the credibility of such witnesses is not impaired where there is a consistency in relating the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the assailant.[77] In any case, the records bear out the fact that during the trial both Emma Suarez and Cris Suarez were able to clarify their averments and despite the grueling cross-examination they were both subjected to, they managed to consistently and credibly maintain their version of what actually happened.
“The home is a sort of sacred place for its owner. He who goes to another’s house to slander him, hurt him or do him wrong, is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.”[87]It, however, is unnecessary to consider evident premeditation although this has likewise been alleged in the information for the trial court itself did not consider this circumstance much less discuss its presence or absence in the case under scrutiny. In any event for evident premeditation to be appreciated, there must be proof, as clear as the evidence of the crime itself, of the following elements thereof, to wit: 1.] the time the accused decided to commit the crime; 2.] an overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination; and, 3.] sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequence of his act.[88]