588 Phil. 872
REYES, R.T., J.:
Criminal Case No. 1087-M-98 (Murder):At their arraignment, both appellants entered a negative plea. Trial on the merits ensued.
That on or about the 19th day of May 1998 in the municipality of Pandi, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, armed with a gun and with intent to kill one Elpidio Castro y de Leon, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with evident premeditation and treachery, attack, assault and shoot with the said gun said Elpidio Castro y de Leon, hitting the latter on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting mortal wounds which directly caused his death.[13]
Criminal Case No. 1087-M-98 (Parricide):
That on or about the 19th day of May 1998 in the municipality of Pandi, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, having deliberately planned to kill Alfredo Castro with whom she was united in a lawful wedlock, conspiring and confederating with one another, accused who were armed with a gun, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with treachery and evident premeditation, attack, assault and shot with said gun said Alfredo Castro, hitting him in the head and chest thereby inflicting mortal wounds which directly caused his death.[14]
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, this Court hereby finds accused Florenda Castro GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Murder in Crim. Case No. 1087-M-98 and Parricide in Crim. Case No. 1088-M-98, and accused Christopher Talita GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Murder for Crim. Cases Nos. 1087 and 1088-M-98, and sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of DEATH for each count and to pay private complainant Lolita de Leon Castro the amounts of P150,000.00 (P75,000.00) as civil indemnities for the death of Elpidio Castro and Alfredo Castro, P100,000.00 (P50,000.00 each) as moral damages, P50,000.00 (P25,000.00 each) as exemplary damages, P402,500 as actual damages, and the costs of suit.Pursuant to People v. Mateo,[21] which modified Rules 122, 124 and 125 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTC to this Court in cases in which the penalty imposed by the trial court is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, this case was referred to the CA for intermediate review.
SO ORDERED.[20]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision dated August 16, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 78, in Criminal Case Nos. 1087-M-98 and 1088-M-98, convicting accused-appellant FLORENDA A. CASTRO of murder and parricide, and accused-appellant CHRISTOPHER G. TALITA, of two counts of murder, and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of DEATH in both cases, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellants are ordered:Hence, this review.
(1) in Criminal Case Nos. 1087-M-98 and 1088-M-98, to pay solidarily (in solidum) the heirs of the victims Elpidio Castro and Alfredo Castro the amount of P264,520.00 in actual damages;
(2) in Criminal Case No. 1087-M-98, to pay solidarily (in solidum) the heirs of the victim Elpidio Castro the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and P50,000.00 as moral damages; and
(3) in Criminal Case No. 1088-M-98, to pay solidarily (in solidum) the heirs of the victim Alfredo Castro the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.[22]
I.
THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT;II.
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED, FLORENDA CASTRO, CONSPIRED WITH HER CO-ACCUSED, CHRISTOPHER TALITA, IN ALLEGEDLY KILLING ELPIDIO CASTRO AND ALFREDO CASTRO. (Underscoring supplied)[23]
Admittedly, an accused in a criminal case may only be convicted if his or her guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. But proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only a moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind; it does not demand absolute certainty and the exclusion of all possibility of error.[32] After all, We do not expect witnesses to give an "error-free testimony." Hindi tayo umaasa na ang mga saksi ay makapagsasalaysay nang walang anumang kamalian.
Pros. Santiago: Q: If this assailant, the one who shot Elpidio and Alfredo, is now in Court, would you be able to recognize him again? A: Yes, Sir. Q: Will you please point to him if he is now in Court? A: He is not here.[29]x x x x Pros. Santiago: Q: This Florenda, if she is now in Court, would you be able to identify her? A: Yes, Sir. Q: Will you please point to her if she is now in Court? A: She is the one. (Witness pointing x x x) Q: Will you please go down and pat her shoulder? A: (Witness patting the shoulder of the person, who, when asked, answered to the name Florenda Castro). Q: Do you know Florenda Castro? A: Yes, Sir. Q: Why do you know her? A: She is the wife of Alfredo. Q: The one shot by the assailant? A: Yes, Sir. Q: And since when have you known Florenda Castro? A: For a long time because she resided in our place for a long time also. Q: Let us go back to your sketch, what did the car do when it stops (sic) from this place? A: The car is (sic) approaching the corner near the gunman. Q: Where did the car stop? A: The car stop (sic) at the middle near a corner. Q: When the car stopped at the middle of this place, what did you see or notice? A: The woman is (sic) pointing to someone. Q: You are referring to Florenda Castro? A: Yes, Sir. Q: Towards what direction was the woman pointing? A: Towards the gunman.[30] For her part, private complainant Lolita Castro partly testified: Q: After the shooting incident, what happened next? A: When my husband and son fell down, I am about to approach them and so the gunman and I met. Q: When meeting the gunman, what happened next? A: He poked a gun at me that is why I returned. Q: To your house? A: Yes, Sir. Q: What did you do in your house? A: The gunman followed me but he stopped at the gate. I proceeded to the terrace to call to the municipal building to ask for help.x x x x Q: After the lapse of one minute, what happened next? A: A car arrived, the front door was already opened and the gunman boarded the said car. Q: What kind of car arrived? A: Color mint green. Q: Were you able to recognize the driver of the jeep (sic)? A: I did not recognize the driver because my focus was on the passengers. Q: Aside from the driver, there are others who are occupants of the car? A: Yes, Sir. Q: Who? A: My daughter-in-law, Florenda. Q: If Florenda Castro is now in Court, would you be able to recognize him (sic) again? A: Yes, Sir. Q: Will you please point to her? A: (Witness pointing to the person who, when asked, answered the name of Florenda Castro).[31]
Buttressing the above findings of the Court are the credible, consistent, straightforward and categorical testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly Godofredo del Rosario, Francisco Domingo, Lolita Castro, Ruperto Cruz, Corazon del Rosario, and Jaime Carrazcal, as supported by the testimonies of the two medico-legal officers, SPO4 Rodante Evangelista and NBI Agent Serafin Gil.In the same vein, the CA found:
All their testimonies, as well as those of the representatives of the Bureau of Customs, if woven together and taken in the light of the supporting documentary exhibits point to nothing but the clear and unequivocal guilt of accused Florenda Castro and Christopher Talita.
That some of the prosecution witnesses are relatives of the victim does not affect their credibility.
Blood or conjugal relationship between a witness and the victim does not per se impair the credibility of the witness - on the contrary, relationship itself could strengthen credibility in a particular case, for it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than the actual culprit. (People v. Rendoque, 322 SCRA 622).
Private complainant Lolita Castro, who herself witnessed the incident, testified categorically on every detail of it. As ruled: The testimony of the widow of the victim is far more credit-worthy than not because of her natural interest to bring to justice the real perpetrators. (People v. Repollo, 332 SCRA 375).
The prosecution likewise showed beyond doubt the identities of herein two accused. Eyewitnesses Godofredo del Rosario, Francisco Domingo, Lolita Castro, Corazon del Rosario, Ruperto Cruz and Jaime Carrazcal positively identified accused Florenda Castro as the one they saw inside the get-away car. Witnesses Lolita Castro and Jaime Carrazcal, however, pointed to accused Talita as the assailant.
The Court finds no reason to doubt the testimonies of aforesaid witnesses on their identification of herein two accused. The incident happened at around 7:00 in the morning along the road of E. Rodriguez St., Poblacion, Pandi, Bulacan.
Where conditions of visibility are favorable and the witnesses did not appear to be biased against the accused, their assertions as to the identity of the malefactors should normally be accepted. (People v. Geral, 333 SCRA 453)
All of the eyewitnesses knew both the victims and accused Castro even before the subject incident.
When the prosecution eyewitnesses were familiar with both victim and accused, and where the locus criminis afforded good visibility, and where no improper motive can be attributed to them for testifying against the accused, then their version of the story deserves much weight. (People v. Tolibas, 326 SCRA 453).
Moreover, on these prosecution witnesses - from the eyewitnesses, to the police investigator, to the NBI agent, and the Bureau of Customs employees, not to mention the two medico-legal officers - no improper motive can be imputed.[33]
There is likewise no basis to doubt the positive identification of accused-appellants by the prosecution eyewitnesses.This Court places great weight on the factual findings of the trial judge. He conducted the trial and heard the testimonies of the witnesses. He personally observed their conduct, demeanor and deportment while responding to the questions propounded by both the prosecutor and defense counsel. He had the opportunity to pose clarificatory questions to the parties. Tersely put, when a trial judge makes his findings as to the issue of credibility, such findings bear great weight, at times even finality, on the appellate court.[35]
Witnesses Godofredo Del Rosario, Christopher del Rosario and Ruperto Cruz were residents of Poblacion, Pandi, Bulacan where accused-appellant Florenda Castro and her husband Alfredo Castro resided before they separated; witness Francisco Domingo is a jeepney driver who regularly passes by at Poblacion, Pandi, Bulacan and has known accused-appellant Florenda Castro's husband Alfredo Castro since their childhood days in Siling Bata, Pandi, Bulacan; and witness Lolita Castro is accused-appellant's mother-in-law while witness Jaime Carascal works as welder in their iron works business. In view of their familiarity with accused-appellant Florenda Castro, these witnesses could not have been mistaken as to the identity of the woman seated at the back seat of the gunman's get away vehicles. Said vehicle had lightly tinted windows and was traveling at a slow pace, providing said eyewitnesses with a good look at its occupants.
On the other hand, the assailant accused-appellant Christopher Talita was positively identified by witnesses Lolita Castro and Jaime Carascal as the same person who was at the residence of the victim Alfredo Castro on May 17, 1998 and pretended to be a customer of said victim's iron works business. Said assailant shot his victims in broad daylight and in full view of these two (2) witnesses and witnesses Godofredo del Rosario, Christopher del Rosario and Ruperto Cruz, thus, their identification of accused-appellant Christopher Talita can be trusted.x x x x
That witnesses Lolita Castro and Christopher del Rosario are relatives of the victims is no reason to denigrate their testimonies, for it is established rule that the mere fact that the witness is a relative of a victim is not a valid or sufficient ground to disregard the former's testimony nor does it render the same less worthy of credit.
Finally, the testimonies of the abovenamed prosecution eyewitnesses, as corroborated by the evidence furnished by Dr. Benito Caballero who conducted the post mortem examinations on the bodies of victims Elpidio and Alfredo Castro, and Dr. Joselito Mendoza, who performed the emergency surgery operation on Elpidio Castro before he eventually died, confirm that the fatal wounds sustained by the victims could definitely have been inflicted by the weapon they have seen held by accused-appellant Christopher Talita during the commission of the crime.x x x x
Furthermore, accused-appellants aver that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are inconsistent with the entries in the police blotter, i.e., the color of the gunman's get away car was white, and not green as testified to by the prosecution eyewitnesses; the non-identification of the gunman who was merely alleged to be accused-appellant Florenda Castro's former bodyguard; and no mention about the presence of accused-appellant Florenda Castro during the incident. Suffice it to state, however, that entries in a police blotter should not be given significance or probative value as they do not constitute conclusive proof of the truth thereof. A police blotter, like any other extrajudicial statement, cannot prevail over testimony in an open court. They are not given undue significance or probative value as they are not evidence of the truth of their contents but merely of the fact that they were recorded.
We thus give full credence to the appreciation of testimonial evidence by the trial court. The oft-repeated principle is that where the credibility of a witness is an issue, the established rule is that great respect is accorded to the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.[34]
x x x Settled is the rule that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect. For, the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply; or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien. x x x[37]Our pronouncement in People v. Sanchez[38] is further illuminating on this point:
The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected in the record. The demeanor of the person on the stand can draw the line between fact and fancy. The forthright answer or the hesitant pause, the quivering voice or the angry tone, the flustered look or the sincere gaze, the modest blush or the guilty blanch - these can reveal if the witness is telling the truth or lying in his teeth.[39]II.Proof of conspiracy versus denial and alibi
Unsubstantiated by clear and convincing proofs, accused-appellants' respective denials necessarily fail. An intrinsically weak defense, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability in order to merit credibility. Mere denial, just like alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.In fine, the defense of denial and alibi is an issue of fact that hinges on the credibility of witnesses. As adverted to earlier, We find the determination by the trial and the appellate courts on the matter of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses to be clearly consistent. Thus, it must be accepted.
Denial and alibi are weak defenses which are unavailing in the face of positive identification.
At any rate, it was for the trial judge, using his sound discretion and his observations at the trial, to determine whom to believe among the witnesses of the parties who gave conflicting testimonies on the whereabouts of accused-appellants in the unholy morning of May 19, 1998. As earlier said, findings of fact and assessment of credibility of witnesses, are matters which are best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' behavior on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. Thus, unless the trial court has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, his assessment of the credibility of witnesses will be respected by the appellate court. We have meticulously examined the records, and found that the trial court's decision has considered every material fact and piece of evidence in this case.[43]
Art. 246. Parricide. - Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of accused.[44]
Sec. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:The applicability of R.A. No. 9346 is undeniable. In criminal law, it is axiomatic that favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda, penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect.[50] Ang mga batas sa krimen na pabor sa nasasakdal ay binibigyan ng balik-bisa.Sec. 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. (Underscoring supplied)
- the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
- the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.