571 Phil. 170
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
The undersigned Asst. City Prosecutor accuses ROMEO SUERTE I. FELIPE of the crime of HOMICIDE committed as follows:The prosecution’s version of the 11 July 1999 incident is as follows:
That on or about July 11, 1999, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, with intent to kill, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot by means of a firearm one GODOFREDO ARIATE, thereby, inflicting upon the latter gunshot wounds which caused his death.[3]
(T)he formal taking of the testimony of Dr. Archanghel was dispensed with after the prosecution agreed that: (1) Dr. Arcanghel was the one who attended and treated the accused for the injuries he sustained as reflected in the Medical Records as marked in Exhibits “1”, “1-a”. “1-b”, “1-c”, “1-d”, “1-e”, “1-f”, “1-g” and “1-h”. By reason of this stipulation, the testimony of Arcanghel is dispensed with and the fact, among others, that the accused sustained injuries as shown in the aforesaid exhibits, now form part of the record of this case as evidence for the accused.[5]On 8 November 2001, the Regional Trial Court found petitioner guilty as charged, to wit:
WHEREFORE, accused ROMEO I. SUERTE FELIPE is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of HOMICIDE.Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals assigning the following as errors:
Accordingly, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as minimum, to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Moreover, said accused is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of Godofredo Ariate the sum of P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of Godofredo Ariate, P21,800.00 as actual damages, and to pay the costs.[6]
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay city, Branch 117, in Criminal Case No. 00-0182, convicting appellant Romeo I. Suerte-Felipe of homicide is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that an additional amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) is awarded to the heirs of the victim Godofredo Ariate as moral damages. No pronouncement as to costs.[8]Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, raising the following arguments:
Q | When you do conducted medico legal examinations they are always predicated on written request either by the police agency or any particular person interested, isn’t it? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | And that request is always in writing? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | Among that, precisely, is your Exhibit “A” where it appears that a certain Eduardo Ariate signed. I’m showing to you. |
A | This is the request I received. |
x x x x | |
Q | And of course, since you did not prepare this it was only referred to you, you do not know actually the signature appearing there? |
A | Yes, Sir. |
Q | You did not see him signed (sic)? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | And of course, too, the specimen submitted, since you did not prepare it, you merely rely [on] what appears here? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | In fact, even the date and place of the alleged incident you don’t have personal knowledge, of course? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | With respect to Certificate of Identification of Dead Body, do counsel understand that this is also prepared by Veronica Funeral Parlor? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | So like Exhibit “B”, this could properly be testified to and authenticated by the personnel of Veronica Funeral Parlor? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | Again, there’s nothing here which indicate that this is officially numbered or marked by your office? |
A | Yes, Sir. |
Q | Is it not a fact that documents of this, I’m sure have serial number? |
A | For the request and the Certificate of Identification of Dead Body that was prepared by the funeral parlor accredited by the NBI, we don’t usually put any identified number. |
Q | You again rely on everything stated here, in fact, you cannot tell whose signature appears here? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | You did not, like Exhibits “A” and “B”, authenticate these after your examination, in other words, you did not initialed (sic)? |
A Yes, Sir. | |
x x x x | |
Q | And of course, at the time you initially conducted whatever examination you are required under the law, nobody, not even the person who allegedly identified the body was there, to identify it to you? |
A | I was not aware if the person identified is another one. |
Q | And you did not required who identified? |
A | It was relayed to me that it was the son. |
Q | According to whom? |
A | The agent of the funeral parlor. That is according to the request and Certificate of Dead Body. |
Q | And that agent of the funeral parlor, may we know, if you come to know the name? |
A | I cannot remember the funeral agent during that time. |
Q | Even up to now you did not try to verify? |
A | Yes, sir.[13] |
SEC. 19. Classes of documents.—For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private.Thus, entries in the Certificate of Identification of Dead Body are deemed prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, i.e., that a body has been properly identified as that of Godofredo Ariate. This prima facie evidence of identification cannot be rebutted by an extremely meticulous fault-finding inquiry into the chain of custody of the body of the victim, as such body cannot be easily replaced or substituted by ill-minded persons. What petitioner is asking of us is not to be sedulous anymore, but to be paranoid and unreasonably mistrustful of the persons whom our very rules require us to trust. Petitioner’s criticism of the identification of the body of the victim miserably fails to inject any reasonable doubt in our minds, not when petitioner is even loath to say that the body autopsied was not that of Godofredo Ariate but that of some other person.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.
All other writings are private.
x x x x
SEC. 23. Public documents as evidence.—Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.
(1) Dr. Lagat admitted uncertainty on the following:On the issue of whether the slug that was recovered from the victim’s body came from the .45 caliber firearm of petitioner, the Court of Appeals reiterated the observation of the RTC that the ballistics examination of the subject slug revealed a diameter and a set of riflings which were peculiar to a .45 caliber pistol.[20] Petitioner was admittedly the only one holding a .45 caliber gun at the time of the incident. His two companions, Madriago and Jimeno, were each armed with a 9mm firearm, while Arce was holding a .38 caliber revolver. Furthermore, Godofredo had a heated argument before Godofredo was shot. Thus, it was petitioner who had the motive to kill Godofredo.(2) SPO3 Danico Unico’s testimony that the Scene of the Crime Operatives (SOCO) also recovered another slug at the scene of the crime, which was brought to the SPD headquarters for ballistic examination, but he was never informed of the test result;
- Which of the 3 wounds was inflicted first and which caused [the] death;
- Whether said wounds were caused by 3 weapons, or just by the same gun; and
- The caliber of the gun[s] that may have been used; these cannot be determined based solely on the appearance or nature of said wounds;
(3) Rodolfo Alumbres’ written statement that he saw not only petitioner, but also Eduardo Jimeno and Edison Madriago, shooting at Godofredo; and
(4) The following testimony of NBI Ballistician Rodolfo Bilgera, to wit:
- The [ballisticians] could not determine what particular .45 gun the slug in question came from until said gun is examined and compared with the slug.
- Whether they were caused by three weapons, or by the same gun;
- The caliber of the guns used, which cannot be determined based solely on the appearance or nature of the wounds.[19]
Atty. Ferancullo | |
Q | You stated doctor, that you referred the slug to the Ballistics Division of the NBI and you handed and identified Exhibit “G,” (later changed to Exh. “Y”), my question Doctor is that, do you know whose signature above the name Ludovino Lagat? |
A | It was signed for, by Mr. Mansera, in my behalf. |
Q | Can you explain to us why it was signed for and in your behalf by Mr. Mancera? |
A | Because I instructed him to submit the slug to the ballistician. |
Q | Since you were not the one who signed the request, do you affirm and confirm the veracity of the contents of the letter, now you handed to this representation? |
Atty. Llamas: | |
He will be incompetent, Your Honor, because he was not the one who even signed the indorsement. | |
Court: | |
What’s the question again? | |
Sten: | |
(Reading back question) | |
Court: | |
Witness may answer. | |
Witness: | |
I cannot tell whether this slug submitted was taken from the cadaver, Mr. Mansera can testify more on that. | |
x x x x | |
Atty. Llamas to the witness: | |
Q | You sated very categorically that this transmittal of the slug was made by Man[c]era and that you cannot be sure whether the slug referred to herein is the same slug taken from the cadaver, do you re-affirm that answer of yours? |
A | Yes, Sir.[21] |
According to petitioner, Mansera expressed similar incompetence and uncertainty in the following testimony: | |
Q | This letter, Mr. witness, refers to one (1) slug, extracted from the body of one, Godofredo Ariate, what did you do to that slug? |
A | What I did Sir, was I put the slug in the plastic bag and then put the number in the plastic bag and then brought it to the Firearm Division, Sir. |
Q | If that plastic bag containing the case number that you placed will be shown to you, will you be able to recognize it Mr. Witness? |
A | Yes, Sir. |
Q | How about the bullet you placed inside the plastic bag, will you be able to recognize the same? |
A | No sir, only if it still contained in the plastic bag, Sir.[22] |
Indeed, Dr. Lagat testified that he recovered a slug in wound number three[25] and not in wound number two as stated in the RTC Decision. However, despite the error committed by the trial court in describing the location where the slug was recovered, there is no factual basis for petitioner’s contention that wound number three is not a fatal wound. As shown above, wound number three involves the stomach, liver and intestines.[26] While Dr. Lagat did not testify that wound number three (or wounds number one and two for that matter) was fatal, we believe that it is safe to conclude that wounds number two and three were probably fatal, involving as they did vital parts of the body. This is an example of a circumstantial evidence, which is distinguished from direct evidence as follows:POSTMORTEM FINDINGS
Postmortem rigidity, complete, generalized.
Pallor, generalized.
Gunshot Wounds.
1.) ENTRANCE 2.0 x 1.4 cm; oval; inverted edges; abrasions collar widest at the inferior border; located at the outer portion of the right arm; 16.0 cm. below the elbow; directed upward medially; involving the skin and underlying soft tissues; fracturing the ulna and radius; then making an EXIT 2.0 x 1.5 cm.; irregular in shape; everted edges; located at the inner aspect of the same arm; 7.0 cm. below the elbow.
2.) ENTRANCE 1.0 x 1.1 cm.; oval; inverted edges; abrasion collar widest at the inferior border; inverted edges; located at the right flank (posterior axillary line); 25.0 cm. of the anterior median line and 108.0 cm. from the right heel; directed forward, upward and medially; involving the skin and underlying soft tissues; entering the peritoneal cavity; involving the intestines and liver; then making an EXIT 2.0 x 2.0 cm.; irregular in shape; everted edges; located at the left upper quadrant of the abdomen; 15.0 cm. from the anterior median line and 117.0 cm. above the left heel.
3.) 0.9 x 1.1 cm.; oval inverted edges; abrasion collar at the upper portion, located at the epigastric area, 105.50 cm. from the right heel; directed backward, downward and to the right; involving the skin and soft tissues; involving the stomach, liver and intestines, then the slug lodged at the right gluteal region; 85.0 cm. from the right heel.
Visceral organs – pale.
Hemoperitoneum – 1,200 c.c.
Stomach ½ full of partially digested food particles.
CAUSE OF DEATH:GUNSHOT WOUNDS, BODY.
REMARKS: One (1) slug recovered and submitted to Firearms and Investigation Division for Ballistics examination.[24]
Direct evidence is that which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption; (Lack County vs. Neilon, 44 Or. 14, 21, 74 P. 212) while circumstantial evidence is the proof of fact or facts from which, taken either singly or collectively, the existence of a particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence (State vs. Avery, 113 Mo. 475, 494, 21 S.W. 193; Reynolds Trial Ev., Sec. 4, p. 8)[27]While we therefore agree with petitioner that the above physical evidence does not conclusively prove that petitioner fired the bullet which killed Godofredo Ariate, we should find out whether the above circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution can prove the controverted fact beyond reasonable doubt if considered together with other evidence presented. Thus, Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.—Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:While we shall deal with the credibility of the witnesses later, it is important to note at this point that Alumbres testified that it was petitioner who fired first. According to Alumbres, he was four-arms length away from Godofredo Ariate who was then face to face with petitioner. Alumbres saw Godofredo Ariate arguing with petitioner, when suddenly, petitioner cocked his gun and shot Godofredo at pointblank range.[28]
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Q | Was a ballistic examination conducted? |
A | Yes, your honor. |
Q | What was the result? |
A | It is not yet – |
Q | You did not bother to get a result before turning over your case to the prosecution? Or filing a referral letter to the prosecutor’s office? You think you have completely turn over your case to the prosecutor’s office? |
A: | Since nobody told me to prepare a report. Anyway, I can get a result, your Honor. |
Q: | You should have done that before filing a letter of referral to the prosecutor’s office. Because the prosecutor can only be as good as the possessors of evidence turned over to him. He cannot more foolish than the – he cannot add more ingredients of what was turned over to him. The prosecutor is only make good of what is turned over to him. If the police submit to him a handwash then he have a handwash to a case x x x.[32] |
Q | And since the firing was so sudden, you cannot tell whose gun or whose shot fired first at Ariate? |
A | The first shot came from Romeo Suerte’s gun. |
Q | That is how you surmised it? |
A | That’s what I know, sir.[33] |
ATTY. FERANCULLO | |
Q: | For clarification, the gun that you had at that time when the incident occur is a .45 caliber pistol, is that correct? |
A: | Yes, sir. |
x x x x | |
Q: | This .45 caliber handgun of yours, if this license to your name, Mr. Witness? |
A: | Yes, sir. |
Q: | The Serial Number of this .45 caliber is 91139 and this is a .45 caliber Nurinco? |
A: | Yes, sir. |
Q: | Did you bring it with you now that .45 caliber, Mr. Witness? |
A: | No, sir. |
Q: | Why did you not bring it now, Mr. Witness? |
A: | The gun was missing when I fell down and lost my consciousness. |
Q: | Are you certain, Mr. Witness, with your answer that the firearm, that the .45 caliber gun of yours is missing and that you did not sell it? |
A: | I cannot recall anything when I fell down I do not know what happened so, I do not know whether it was missing or it was sold. |
Q: | You did not sell it? |
A: | No sir, I did not sell it because it was missing. |
Q: | Did you execute an Affidavit of Loss to the effect that your gun was missing? |
A: | No, sir, because I was in the hospital that’s why I have no time to declare the loss of my firearm, what I know is that its missing. |
Q: | So up to now, you have not executed an Affidavit of Loss, have it forwarded to the Firearms and Explosives Division of the PNP? |
A: | No, not yet.[37] |
ATTY. FERANCULLO | |
Q: | Mr. Witness, Mr. Flores stated in this report, marked as Exhibit “W”, Findings/Conclusion which I quote: “Examination made on the bullet marked as “GA”, revealed that it is a caliber .45 copper coated with bullet and was fired through the barrel of a caliber .45 firearm which rifling inclining to the left.” How did your group, five ballisticians of the NBI, arrived at the conclusion that the bullet referred to FID for examination by Dr. Lagat was fired from a caliber .45 firearm? |
A: | Because this bullet was designed from a .45 caliber firearm.[38] |
TO: F.I.D.Mancera later on testified regarding the circumstances surrounding the recovery and marking of the recovered slug:
Respectfully submitted the ff: (1) one slug extracted from the body of one GODOFREDO ARIARTE y de Ocampo, 57 yrs., married, carpenter, Res. # 39 Bo. Bayanihan Onex St., Maricaban, Pasay City.
CASE NO: N-99-832Alleged Case: Shooting
For analysis and/or test as follows:For ballistic examination.
ATTY. FERRANCULO | |
Q: | Mr. Witness, when Dr. Ludovino Lagat testified before this Honorable Court, he identified [a] letter dated July 12, 1999, addressed to the FID of the NBI and inform the Court that the signature appearing above his name Ludovino Lagat is your initial. Will you please examine the document and tell the Honorable Court whether you will be able to identify the initial atop the name Ludovino Lagat? |
A: | My signature, Sir. |
Q: | And how about the signature beside the name Ludovino Lagat and atop the name Armando Mancera, do you know whose signature is that? |
A: | My signature, Sir. |
Q: | Mr. Witness, please explain to the Honorable Court the reason why instead of Dr. Lagat affixing his signature atop his name, your initial is the one now appearing atop his name? |
A: | Because after the conducted autopsy Sir, Dr. Lagat left Sir, so I was the one who initialed them sir. |
Q: | And who prepared this letter, Mr. Witness? |
A: | Me, Sir. |
Q: | And who instructed you to prepare this letter? |
A: | Dr. Lagat, Sir. |
x x x x | |
Q: | This letter, Mr. Witness, refers to one (1) slug, extracted from the body of one, Godofredo Ariate, what did you do to that slug? |
A: | What I did sir, was I put the slug in the plastic bag and then put the number in the plastic bag and then brought it to the Firearm Division, Sir. |
Q: | If that plastic bag containing the case number that you placed will be shown to you, will you be able to recognize it, Mr. Witness? |
A: | Yes, sir. |
Q: | How about the bullet you placed inside the plastic bag, will you be able to recognize the same again? |
A: | No sir, only if it still contained in the plastic bag, Sir. |
Q: | Mr. Witness, I’m showing to you a plastic bag containing markings N-99-832 previously marked in evidence as Exhibit “X-1”, will you please examine this plastic bag and tell the Honorable Court the relationship of this plastic bag you said you placed the markings, the case number? |
A: | This is the one, Sir. |
x x x x | |
Q: | Mr. Witness, this letter you typed is addressed to FID, what is your proof that this letter was received by the FID? |
A: | There is a stamp received, Sir.[41] |
For his defense, the accused cannot seem to make up whether to interpose self-defense, or to altogether deny any participation in the shooting to death of Godofredo Ariate. He is loath to say that he shot Ariate accidentally, yet, his testimony is also abundant with overtures that if he did shot Ariate, it was purely accidental. Consequently, the testimony of the accused is as confused as it is unbelievable.Petitioner claims that his testimony was not at all “confused” or “unbelievable,” but was simply either misunderstood or taken out of context. He claims that “far from being ‘mongrelized’ (his) claim of self-defense, accident and lack of participation is a factual admixture, the components of which, taken singly or jointly, are clear and credible.”
Accused alleges that Godofredo Ariate and Rodolfo Alumbres together with about eight people walked up to him and repeatedly stabbed him on his back; Pio Arce followed by shooting him. Armed with a 45 cal. pistol as he was, accused admitted having drawn it from his waistline. Having thus drawn the gun, one reasonably expects that accused will fire his gun at his supposed attackers in legitimate retaliation and self-preservation. But that is not so. After being stabbed and shot, he would have this court believe that he drew his gun and fired it – not at anybody – but only as a warning shot.
For this court, that act of the accused is unbelievable. But the accused has an altogether different concern. He thought the act of deliberately firing his gun under this life-and-death situation that he has conjured would place him in bad light. So, he made an abrupt turn-around and say things that he hoped would place him in good light. Thus, he alleges that he merely “accidentally pulled the trigger and fired his gun upwards”; he had “no intention of firing it”, “there was no instance that he pointed his gun at any of his attackers”.
Yet, in no time at all, accused negated his own protestation as a passive prey when he asseverated that “he drew his gun for self-defense”. The court wonders how he could draw the gun and use it in self-defense if he intends to fire only a warning shot, or, maybe, a shot in the air. How could he prevent his attackers from further attacking him if he simply draws his gun and but not aim it at any of them, or if he was content with merely drawing his gun without intention of firing it or pulling its trigger? The court is not persuaded by such an unnatural and abnormal human conduct. The court is inclined to believe what is natural, normal and consistent with the common experience of humankind. The accused did not only draw his gun, nor did he accidentally pull its trigger and fire it upwards. While Alumbres and Arce cannot be believed in other aspects of their testimony, the court is fully convinced with their positive identification of the accused as the killer of Godofredo Ariate.
Danilo Villa, the lone witness accused called to corroborate his mongrelized defense theory of denial/self-defense/accident, carries the earmarks of a planted witness. He said he witnessed the incident when the accused – his “Pareng Romy” – was repeatedly stabbed and shot on July 11, 1999. After July 11, 1999, he always sees the accused in the afternoons and evenings and engages in a conversation with him. Strangely, never did he mention to his “Pareng Romy” what he witnessed nor did the accused ask him if he witnessed the incident. Stranger even is the fact that of the many meetings he had with the accused, never did they discuss about the bloody incident of July 11.
Then, all of a sudden, a week before he testified in court on October 4, 2001 – and for the first time – accused requested him to testify in the accused’s defense. And that, too, was the first time he learned that the accused was charged for the death of Godofredo Ariate.
If the accused is a friend to Villa as the latter would like to impress upon this court, it is normal human conduct for Villa to share with the accused in the many conversations they had what he witnessed. The accused for his part, will just be too happy to find in Villa not just a friend, but someone who sees the July 11 incident the way he wants this court to see it: that he is either completely innocent, or that he shot Ariate in legitimate self-defense, or that his shooting of Ariate was pure accident. Then he could have, with anxious anticipation of justice being done, preserved the testimony of Villa, and utilize it as early as the preliminary investigation stage of this case. But the accused did not.
That Villa didn’t say a word to the accused about the July 11 incident and the accused never cared to illicit from Villa any knowledge he may have about said incident, only shows that Villa knows nothing of his own personal knowledge about it.[42]
(1) | “there are loose ends in the(ir) testimony”; |
(2) | “as dramatis personae of this bloody human drama, they will try mighty hard to free themselves from any blame and portray themselves in the best possible light they can conjure”; and |
(3) | “they leave something to be desired in their effort to project themselves as innocent babes and level-headed guardians of peace”[43] |
(1) When asked about his work, he claimed he is a “laborer.” But to justify his presence at the scene of the incident that night of 11 July 1999, he hastened to add that he is a “tanod” of Brgy. 180. However, the incident happened in Brgy. 185, where petitioner resides, and not Brgy. 180, where he and Arce had jurisdiction;Petitioner claims that Pio Arce’s contradictions are as follows:
(2) Alumbres claimed that he was standing beside an alley in Brgy. 180 when he “saw” his “friend” Godofredo talking with petitioner who was with policemen Jimeno and Madriago, and that as he looked again, he “saw” petitioner and even Jimeno and Madriago firing at Godofredo. On cross-examination, however, he admitted not seeing the alleged shooting, but merely hearing gunshots (putukan), so “inalam niya”, that is, he “came near to check who was the gun holder.” With this admission, he belied his earlier claim that he saw Godofredo talking with petitioner and the petitioner shooting at Godofredo;
(3) Alumbres claimed that he saw Godofredo and petitioner talking, but did not hear their conversation. He later claimed that he heard their conversation, but did not know if they were quarreling. Then in the end of his examination, he admitted having heard the conversation between Godofredo and petitioner before the shooting and it was about Raymond, a mentally retarded boy whom petitioner earlier protected by stopping Godofredo’s maltreatment of him;
(4) Alumbres at first said that he saw only the petitioner shooting at Godofredo, then he changed his mind and said that he saw not only petitioner, but also Jimeno and Madriago firing at Godofredo;
(5) Alumbres described appellant as his “long time acquaintance”, but he later contradicted himself by saying that petitioner may not know him, and that after the shooting, he had to ask around about petitioner’s work;
(6) Alumbres called Jimeno and Madriago as petitioner’s policemen “alalay,” but it turned out that Jimeno and Madriago were not petitioner’s “alalay” but co-employees at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, and that Alumbres did not even know their names at the time of the incident;
(7) When shown a sketch of the scene of the accident, he immediately claimed inability to see because “malabo and mata ko”, but he in no time proceeded to recognize, described and even helped mark certain places indicated in the sketch;
(8) He belied his claim of weak eyesight when he boldly claimed having seen the bullets of the policemen that were meant for him hit the wall of a house.
(9) Alumbres also stressed that three (3) shots were fired at him: the first shot came from petitioner and (h)it him, while the second and third shots, which came from Jimeno and Madriago, hit the wall of a house. Later, he stated that four (4) shots were fired at him: “Romeo (petitioner) fired his gun twice, the two policemen, one each”, and petitioner’s first shot missed him, but his second shot hit his right leg.[44]
(1) When asked if he remembered anything unusual that happened that night of 11 July 1999, he readily said that there was none. Then he changed his mind by saying that William Ariate told him that his father Godofredo was having a quarrel, but petitioner triggered an exchange of fire, wherein he saw petitioner shooting Godofredo and Alumbres.Petitioner also claims that Arce’s and Alumbres’ testimonies contradict each other:
(2) Arce denied any knowledge of petitioner being attacked and wounded.[45]
(1) According to Alumbres, petitioner had already shot him and Godofredo when Arce arrived. But Arce contradicted Alumbres, saying that when he arrived at the scene he saw petitioner loudly quarreling yet with Godofredo, and so he talked to petitioner but petitioner fired at him, and then he saw petitioner firing at Godofredo and later at Alumbres;Petitioner finally decries the “deafening silence” of Alumbres and Arce on the established fact that it was petitioner who was attacked and, hence, had many wounds. Alumbres never mentioned any stabbing; he knew only the gunshot wound petitioner sustained. In the case of Arce, he never saw any stabbing attack on petitioner.
(2) Alumbres claimed that when Arce arrived, the latter shouted “Romy, tama na yan, bagsak na yang dalawa”. On the other hand, Arce claimed to have shouted only the following “Romy, ayusin na lang natin ito.”;
(3) Alumbres claimed that when Arce arrives, the latter fired a warning shot. But Arce never claimed he fired any warning shot;
(4) Alumbres claimed that Arce brought him and Godofredo to the hospital. But Arce claimed that he merely shouted for people to bring Godofredo and Alumbres to the hospital then he left the scene immediately; and
(5) Alumbres claimed (though he later made a modification) that before the shooting, he saw/heard appellant and Godofredo merely talking, but he did not know if they were quarreling as he was about three full arms length away. On the other hand, Arce claimed that as soon as he arrived he saw petitioner loudly arguing with Godofredo.[46]
(1) There is clearly no inconsistency in Alumbres’ claims that he was a laborer and that, at the same time, he is a tanod. Petitioner did not pursue the subject or offer any evidence that would show that Alumbres was lying. As a tanod, it is not incredible for Alumbres to be within an area adjacent to his jurisdiction;We have held that inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their declarations, their veracity, or the weight of their testimonies; slight contradictions in fact serve to strengthen the sincerity of a witness and prove that his testimony is not rehearsed.[52] It is settled that so long as the witnesses’ testimonies concur on substantial matters, the inconsistencies and contradictions do not affect the witnesses’ credibility or the verity of their testimonies.[53]
(2) On the observation that Alumbres earlier claimed that he saw petitioner shoot Godofredo, but later claimed that he heard a gunshot that made him look to determine who fired the same, it is quite possible that it was the first shot that made him look back at petitioner and Godofredo just in time to see the rest of the first shots fired by petitioner at Godofredo. Being merely three arms away from the firing, it is not unlikely that, after his eyes wandered for a brief moment, he does not even have to twist his head to another direction to be able to look back at petitioner and Godofredo, thus seeing even the very first shot fired;
(3) On the claim that Alumbres at first said that he saw only the petitioner shooting at Godofredo, then changed his mind and said that he also saw Jimeno and Madriago firing at Godofredo, Alumbres had clarified that it was Godofredo who fired the first shot. This was what he was referring to the first time it was asked;
(4) Alumbres’ asking around about petitioner’s work is not at all incompatible with considering petitioner an acquaintance. It is not unlikely for persons to have acquaintances whose work they do not know;
(5) On calling Jimeno and Madriago as petitioner’s “alalay,” Alumbres was merely describing how Jimeno and Mardriago appeared to be at that time. Not knowing the names of Jimeno and Madriago at the time of the incident is not inconsistent with any of Alumbres’ statements.
(6) When Alumbres said “malabo and mata ko,” Alumbres was clearly referring to a problem concerning reading near objects, as shown in the second day of cross-examinations when he failed to read small letters on the map presented to him, saying it is blurred.[50] When Alumbres said “malabo ang mata ko” during the first day of cross-examination,[51] Alumbres did not refrain from answering the question regarding the exhibit and even helped mark certain places indicated in the sketch, probably after adjusting his view. This shows that his statement “Malabo ang mata ko” was not intended to let him escape a line of questioning, as petitioner implies. This thus likewise debunks petitioner’s claim that Alumbres belied his claim of weak eyesight when he boldly claimed having seen the bullets of the policemen that were meant for him hit the wall of a house.
(7) The differing accounts on how much Alumbres heard of the exchange between Godofredo and petitioner before the shooting, as opposed to what he found out later; what Pio Arce said when he arrived, and how many shots were fired, are trivial and can easily be forgotten.
(8) When Pio Arce said that he did not remember anything unusual on the night of 11 July 1999, he was clearly referring to the time before the incident. Otherwise, he would not have been testifying at all!
(9) The failure of Alumbres to notice when Arce arrived at the scene of the crime is quite understandable, considering the events that were already transpiring.