381 Phil. 102
MENDOZA, J.:
That on or about the 20th day of March, 1989, at 9:30 o'clock in the evening, more or less, at Barangay Lingayao, Las Nieves, Agusan del Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, shoot and fire with an Armalite M16 Rifle, the house of Segundino Senados, Sr. inflicting mortal wounds to Jerry Senados, a seven (7) year old child of Segundino Senados, Sr. and Millianita Senados, who was sleeping thereat at that time and which directly caused his death.Five witnesses were presented for the prosecution: the spouses Segundino and Millianita Senados, the parents of the victim, PO3 Bernabe Pedregosa, Paquito Garcia, and Sgt. Romeo Minerva.
CONTRARY TO LAW: Article 248, Revised Penal Code.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Luisito Paglinawan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder charged in the information and imposes upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance attending the commission of the crime except treachery which qualified the offense to murder.Accused-appellant assigns the following errors as having been allegedly committed by the trial court:
The accused is ordered to pay the Spouses Segundino and Millianita Senados compensatory damages in the sum of Ten Thousand (P10,00.00) Pesos representing burial expenses. In addition, the accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the heirs of Jerry Senados the sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos in accordance with the resolution of the Supreme Court dated August 30, 1990 (People vs. Yeban).
The accused is entitled to the full benefits of his preventive imprisonment conformably with Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. He shall serve his sentence at the Davao Prison and Penal Farm at Panabo, Davao del Norte.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
First. Accused-appellant points out that the Senados spouses did not immediately point to him as the culprit but only did so seven days after the incident. He argues that this fact is fatal to the case of the prosecution, because it casts doubt on his identification as the assailant.
- THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT THE DEFENSE HAD PERSISTENTLY CLAIMED THAT THE FAILURE OF SPOUSES SEGIJNDINO AND MILLIANITA SENADOS TO REPORT FOR MANY DAYS THAT APPELLANT WAS THE ASSAILANT OF THEIR SON AND HAD SHOT MILLIANITA SENADOS' FOOT SHATTERED WHATEVER CREDENCE CAN BE GIVEN TO HER TESTIMONY ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
- THE TRIAL COURT ERRED SERIOUSLY IN GIVING WEIGHT TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED BY THE SENADOS SPOUSES WHO THEY SAID STAYED FOR SOMETIME AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME AFTER THE LAST BURST OF GUNFIRE EVEN AS THE ASSAILANT HAD EARLIER SHOT A LIGHT BULB PRECISELY TO PREVENT BEING IDENTIFIED.
- THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF APPELANT AS THE ASSAILANT ON THE BASIS OF THE VOICE OF SEGUNDINO SENADOS DURING HIS TESTIMONY THAT, ACCORDING TO THE TRIAL COURT, EXUDED WITH CONFIDENCE EVEN AS IN THE SAME JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, IT ALREADY RULED THAT THE PURPORTED CONFESSION OF APPELLANT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.
- THE TRIAL COURT ERRED SERIOUSLY WHEN IT ALLUDED MOTIVE TO KILL THE SENADOS DESPITE THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE CONCLUSION WAS DRAWN.
- THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
In the same manner, Millianita Senados testified:[10]
Q While he was in your house with his men, you talked with each other you and Sgt. Patombon, is it not?A Yes, we talked.Q You told him that it was the accused in this case who shot your house?A No, sir. I did not tell him.Q Why did you not tell him when he was the first authority that you saw?A I have forgotten about it because my first reaction was to save my family.
Q You wanted to seek justice, is it not?A Yes, of course.Q That was your thoughts also when Sgt. Patombon went to your house, is it not?A What was on my mind at that time, because I was confused, was to save my family and to bring the injured to the hospital, I did not think about justice yet.Q According to you Sgt. Patombon was the detachment commander of the CHDF Unit in Lingayao. Did he not ask you who shot at your house?A No, he did not ask.Q When he went to your house and stayed there for 5 minutes did he ask you who shot your house?A He was just silent, sir.Q Okay, did he ask you why you went to his house and asked for help?A No, he did not ask.Q How did he know that you would be requesting for the use of his jeep?A I told him about the shooting and he was aware of it because of the gunfires.. . . . Q The fact that according to you it was the accused who shot your wife wounding her on the foot, that hurt your feelings, is it not Mr. Senados?A Yes, very very much.Q And despite all these hurts and anguish that you feel, you never told the very first authority what you saw that it was the accused who was the person who shot at your wife and son, is it not?A All I can is that, at that time I was not able to tell them because I was concerned with my family and in bringing them to the hospital in Tungao.. . . . Q As you saw one of your children died and buried, you feel hurt and anguish, and as you saw your wife languishing in the hospital you also feel hurt and anguish. Now, who was the very first military officer whom you told about the incident?A I did not tell anything to any military, it was the police whom I told. I have never confided to the military.. . . . Q Let us now be certain because you might have forgotten the events at that time. The first time you reported to Sgt. Minerva, the Station Commander of Las Nieves, Agusan del Norte, was only on the 27th day of March, 1989, is that right?A I went there twice. It was on the second visit in Las Nieves when my affidavit was taken.Q When you reported for the first time to the police station of Las Nieves when was that?A Less than a week after the incident happened.Q Would you say on the 5th day after March 20, 1989?A I am not sure but what I am sure of is that on the second visit on the 27th, the affidavit was taken.Q The first time you reported to the police station, did you tell Sgt. Minerva that it was the accused who shot at your house killing your son and wounding your wife?A Yes, sir.Q Are you sure of that?A Yes, sir, I am sure.Q Are you sure that it was Sgt. Minerva to whom you made the report?A Yes sir, I am sure.
Thus, the Senados spouses were justified in not pointing accused-appellant to Patombon. Moreover, there was no considerable delay in reporting the incident to the police. Segundino went to Sgt. Minerva three days after the incident to identify accused-appellant as the suspect. This was confirmed by Sgt. Minerva himself and that was the reason they looked for accused-appellant on March 24, 1989. The police officers acted on the lead furnished by Segundino. Accused-appellant himself admits that the two policemen questioned him on that day.
Q According to you, you wanted to bring Paglinawan to justice because your son died and you were injured, and you were also afraid, so you wanted to tell first the military or police official who the author of the crime was, is it not?A Yes, Sir, we went to Minerva.Q Are you referring to the chief of police?A Yes.Q Did you tell Minerva that the person who shot at you and your son as well as your house was Paglinawan?A Yes, sir.Q When did you tell him?A When we were already there in Tungao and when my big toe was already healed, that's the time I told him.Q How many days after the incident?A About two (2) weeks after.. . . . Q Do you know that there was a member of the 23rd Army Battalion by the name of Nestor Patombon residing near your house?A Ernesto Patombon.Q But he was a member of the 23rd Army Battalion based in Lingayao, is it not?A Yes, Sir.Q You knew him to be an army officer, is it not?A Yes, Sir.Q In fact, it was Nestor or Ernesto Patombon whom you asked that you be transported to the Tungao Hospital, is it not?A Yes, Sir, because I requested his vehicle.. . . . Q You knew Patombon to be an army officer and that your son was already dead and you were wounded, you were angry and you were afraid, did you tell him who shot you and killed your son?A We did not tell anything to Patombon because we were in a hurry then to the hospital and besides it is in our minds that we will tell the incident to the chief of police.Q You told nobody other than Patombon that it was Paglinawan who shot your son before you went to the police?A Nobody.. . . . Q Listen carefully, don't smile because your son died, you were injured, you were angry, and you wanted that this people be brought to justice, did you not tell Patombon who is a military officer that it was Paglinawan who shot you and your son?A I did not tell Patombon. I reserved it to the chief of police because we intended to file a complaint against Paglinawan.Q There were other people within the vicinity when you took a ride on that jeep, is it not?A Yes.Q You did not tell anyone of them that it was Paglinawan who shot your son and shot you, is that correct?A I did not tell anybody because I am afraid that this Paglinawan might flee away. I just reserved to tell that to the chief of police.Q But Patombon is an army official why were you afraid that Paglinawan would escape?A I only intended to tell this incident to the chief of police, Minerva.Q As an express of your grief because your son died, did it not occur to your mind to tell just anyone that Paglinawan shot your son?A At that time, I will never tell anyone because Paglinawan might escape.. . . . Q Who were on that jeep aside from you and your son?A My cousin was with me.Q Could you give us the name of your cousin?A Antonio Ranuco, my cousin, my son junior together with my husband and the driver whose name I do not know.. . . . Q Your cousin, Antonio Ranuco, was not in your house when it was shot at, is that correct?A Yes, Sir, he was on the road.Q You did not even tell your own cousin, Antonio Ranuco, that it was Paglinawan who shot at you and your son?A I did not for fear that he might reveal that information to others and Paglinawan may succeed in escaping.
Situated on an elevated position on the second floor of their 2-storey house, with the 10-watt fluorescent lamp put off after having been hit by the first shot, Segundino and Millianita Senados, in the darkened room, have better means and opportunity of vision to see outside the house. The 50-watt incandescent lamp on the first floor provided the illumination of the premises where the assailant was standing. Let it be noted with significance, that accused Luisito Paglinawan is the husband of the niece of complainant Millianita Ranuco Senados. The offended party and the accused live in the same barangay and practically see each other often. Undoubtedly, accused Luisito Paglinawan is known to Millianita and her husband. . . . Their testimony was natural and the recollection of the horrible experience they have undergone appeared not to have been effaced from their memory as they recounted them with conviction and determination as if the gate of recall was pried open.It is established that conclusions and findings of fact of the trial court, as well as the assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are binding on us except when there are facts and circumstances of weight and influence overlooked by the lower court which could alter the result.[11] This case does not fall under the exception.
His motive is that the land that was the share of my brother Vicente was sold to Florencio Bajao. Then I redeemed the property from Florencio Bajao and in the case before Branch 1, the Court ruled that I should be the one to till his land. Thus, I took possession of the land depriving the father of the accused Evidejo Paglinawan from tilling the land as well as his father-in-law, Francisco Olor, from continuing their work on that land.Third. Accused-appellant went to Siquijor and did not return to Barangay Lingayao until six months later and it was only then that he was finally arrested. It is now claimed that he went to Siquijor to claim his father's share in the land of his grandparents. This explanation is unsubstantiated. Moreover, his claim is doubtful because the fact is that his father was still alive.
[U]nder the facts of this case based on the evidence the prosecution presented, the Senados couple was not in a position to defend themselves as the assailant struck at a time when the occupants of the house have already retired, leaving in the wake of his attack a 6-year old boy dead and his mother wounded on the left foot. Undoubtedly, there is treachery when the assailant crept up to his victims who were unaware of the impending damage to their life and limb. The crime committed is murder.Finally, it is noteworthy that the information filed in this case is only for the murder of Jerry Senados, the seven-year old child of Segundino and Millianita Senados. Though the prosecution established in the testimony of its witnesses that Millianita Senados and Junior Senados were injured, the court cannot hold accused-appellant liable for said injuries since he was not properly charged therefor. The Constitution is clear that an accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[14] Hence, a person cannot be convicted of a crime for which he has not been charged, otherwise, he would be denied the due process of law.
. . . .
To authorize a finding of premeditation, it must affirmatively appear from the overt acts of the accused that he has definitely resolved to commit the offense; that he has from then cooly and dispassionately reflected both on the means of carrying his resolution into execution and on the consequences of his design; and that an appreciable length of time has elapsed as to expect an aroused conscience to otherwise relent and desist from the accomplishment of the proposed crime. Definitely, the prosecution has not adduced proof to satisfy the requirements establishing this qualifying circumstance of premeditation. Mere presumptions and inferences are insufficient.[13]