405 Phil. 312
KAPUNAN, J.:
FINDINGS:Myrna Aquino, sister of the late Severino L. Aquino, testified that she incurred funeral expenses amounting to P17,000.00.[12]
- Gunshot wound located at the right parietal region going and out the left cheek (thru and thru).
- Stabbed wound located below the right clavicle directing downward penetrating the right lung.
- Cadavere (sic) is in advance stage of decomposition.[11]
WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Arnulfo Natividad guilty of murder and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.In his brief, appellant contends that:: (1) the prosecution's evidence failed to meet the quantum of proof required to overcome the presumption of innocence accruing in favor of the appellant; and (2) the police officers are not credible witnesses.[17]
As the Court cannot consider the evidence presented against Natividad binding as against Vicente Millado, who was arraigned after the prosecution had presented the witnesses, the prosecution is ordered to inform this Court within ten (10) days from receipt of this judgment, as to whether it can still present evidence against accused Vicente Millado; otherwise, the Court will dismiss this case against Vicente Millado.
The peace officers are ordered to intensify their efforts to arrest Sesinando "Boy" Llerina. As far as he is concerned, this case will be placed in the archives to be retrieved upon his arrest.
Costs against accused Natividad.
SO ORDERED.[16]
The rule is ordinarily to the effect that delay by a witness in divulging what he or she knows about the commission of a crime, such as the identity of the offender, is not by itself a setback to the evidentiary value of such a witness' testimony. The courts, however, have been quick to deny evidentiary weight where such delay is not sufficiently justified by any acceptable explanation.In its Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General opines that the silence of the witnesses for four (4) years was satisfactorily explained because the records reveal that the witnesses were cowed into silence by appellant who admittedly was an influential man being then the municipal mayor of the place.[22] The appellant municipal mayor exercised moral dominance and influence over these police officers. In addition, he was able to easily intimidate them with his ten (10) bodyguards around him.[23] We find the explanation of the trial court to be enlightening, to wit:
It may be asked - Why did the witnesses come forward only after about four years from the date of the incident? The accused Natividad is the town mayor of Ramos, Tarlac. The way the offense being attributed to him was committed will surely instill fear on the citizens, the policemen who are witnesses in this case included. There is no plausible reason why the Court should not believe them. No ill motivation was shown as to why they will falsely impute to the accused Natividad the commission of a heinous crime if it is not true.[24]This Court cannot accept the distinction proffered by appellant between laypersons and police officers as witnesses considering the factual circumstances of the case. The accused in this case is no ordinary person in the place where the crime was committed. At that time, the accused-appellant was the municipal mayor. In People v. Dominguez,[25] this Court held that the delay of four (4) months did not impair the credibility of the witness since the accused were found to be clearly powerful and influential persons in the place where the crime was committed, namely, the mayor of the place, the mayor's brother, a PC Sergeant and Civil Home Defense Force Supervisor, a Lieutenant of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, a Police Sergeant and Police Station Commander. The fear of the witness heightened with the threat of dire consequences if he would testify. Thus, this Court in Dominguez adopted the trial court's rejection of the argument of the defense in this wise:
That defense makes much of Cagod's conduct after the shooting of Boligor. Why did he remain silent when everyone wanted to know who the malefactors were? Why indeed? The defense forgets that the malefactors were not just any Tom, Dick and Harry - they were, perhaps, the most powerful and influential men in the Municipality of Sinacaban. Alfeo Lucing, who had shadowed Cagod, had already given stern warning. Cagod's fear later took concrete shape when Macalisang threatened him at gunpoint with dire consequences if he as much as breathed a word of the incident. x x x[26]In People v. Teehankee,[27] this Court found the initial reluctance of the witness in revealing to the authorities what he knew because of a real, not imaginary, fear for the witness' and his family's safety a sufficient explanation. The witness had seen with his own eyes the senseless violence perpetrated by the accused who the witness knew belonged to an influential family. Likewise, in People v. Ferrera,[28] the witness was overcome by fear arising from the accused's considerable influence in the community that he chose to remain mum about the killing. This did not impair his credibility since a witness' failure to reveal what he knows due to fear of reprisal cannot weaken his credibility.
xxx Thus, failure to reveal what one witnessed about a crime for a number of days, or weeks, or even a number of months, is allowable. But, that will not hold true where, as in the case now being reviewed, the delay had unreasonably stretched all too far out into a year and four months, especially in the absence of any compelling or rational basis for such self-imposed and lengthy silence. xxxThe length of the delay is not as significant as the reason or explanation of the delay, which must be sufficient or well-grounded. A well-grounded fear of reprisal is a sufficient justification of the delay of the witness in revealing what he/she had witnessed. In People v. Francisco,[30] the wife of the witness, who is the victim's sister, prevented him from testifying for fear of reprisal coupled with an actual threat from the accused-appellants was considered a sufficient explanation. In People v. Pacapac,[31] the fear of a witness who was related to the victim as they had just undergone a traumatic experience and who believed "that one death in the family is enough" was also considered as an adequate explanation. In People v. Reoveros,[32] this Court made the following observation: "It is common experience that people overcome by great fear, not only for their lives but also of their loved ones, will choose to remain tight-lipped about an incident and suffer in silence, rather than expose to risk their own safety and of those for whom they care."[33]
The span of time from 1985 to February 26, 1990 when Servillana executed her affidavit narrating about the heinous crime could be due to her fear, that the eight armed persons could just be marauding her barangay and the vicinities.In this case, appellant was the municipal mayor of the place where the crime was committed. At the time he committed the crime, he brought with him around ten bodyguards. As if nonchalantly, he shot the helpless victim mercilessly in front of several people including the witnesses who were police officers. He actually threatened to shoot SPO3 Daileg and SPO2 Padua when they tried to pacify him. As correctly observed by the Solicitor-General, appellant exercised moral dominance over these police officers because of his position.
With their firearms and the eight persons in the group who committed the crime could not be taken lightly especially in the rural areas where there is no protection of their safety liquidation squad, retribution or rub-out is not farfetched. The present situation becomes of public knowledge that life now is easily snap out by and through the presence of armed men marauding in the countryside and even in towns and urban areas.
This abnormal situation, and the propensity of armed men crisscrossing the barangays creates fear and even nervous wreck to some are present in the minds of the people.
Servillana's ordeal, an eyewitness to the execution of her husband in utter helplessness and despair in the prevailing circumstances, that affects the peace and order condition of the community logically explains the delay in executing her sworn statement.
The delay does not prove negatively, that the accused did not commit the crime, instead it bolstered her redress for grievances against the assailants, now that the police came to her aid giving her the opportunity to identify them in jail.[37]
Notably, while these police officers did not conduct an investigation and file a case against the accused-appellant, all witnesses readily revealed what they knew when summoned to testify. They convinced the trial court that the facts they related were true and of their personal knowledge. Well-entrenched is the rule that findings of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight, even finality, on appeal, unless the trial court has failed to appreciate certain facts and circumstances which, if taken into account, would materially affect the result of the case. Having had the opportunity to personally observe and analyze their demeanor and manner of testifying, the trial judge is in a better position to pass judgment on their credibility.[44] In this case, we find no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court.
Q: Will you tell the Court why is it that you did not report this incident of February 20, 1989 prior to July 21, 1993 to any Police or Military Officer?A: One thing, I was afraid of Mayor Natividad and another thing we have a change (sic) of command wherein our chief will be the one to report.Q: Did you know if your Chief of Police at that time who according to you was a certain Pagaduan reported the incident to your PNP Superiors or military authorities?A: I do not know, sirQ: Do you mean to tell the Court you did not bother to check from February 20, 1989 to July 21, 1993 whether Pagaduan reported this incident to your PNP Superiors or to any Police authorities"A: I was afraid of Mayor Natividad, sir.Q: But you know for a fact that Pagaduan did not report to the Police authorities?A: I do not know, sir.Q: Will you tell the Court after February 20, 1989 did you happen to meet again Pagaduan?
A: Yes, sir.Q: Did you ask him if he reported this incident that happened on February 20, 1989 to the Police authorities?A: I did not ask anymore because he was the chief. He should be the one to report the incident. They should be the one to report, sir.Q: You said that he should be the one to report, what is your basis for saying that? A: Because they are higher to us, sir.
Q: In other words, it was merely your conclusion that Pagaduan report the incident because he was on a higher rank than you were at that time, is that correct?A: Yes, sir, he is the chief. Q: Is it not a fact that one of your duties as Police Officer is to report any commission of crime and to apprehend a person who committed a crime in your presence?A: Yes, sir. Q: Will you tell us, did not these duties of Police Officer which according to you, you know occurred to you from the time this incident happened in February 20, 1989 up to July 20, 1993?A: I thought of that, sir, only I was afraid of Mayor Natividad.[38] x x xQ: Is it not a fact that Mayor Natividad the accused never threatened you of anything? A: That is it, sir. When we were pacifying him he told us we are tolerating this "even you I will kill you."[39]Q: Will you tell the Court why is it that you did not report this incident of February 20, 1989 prior to July 21, 1993 to any Police or Military Officer?A: One thing, I was afraid of Mayor Natividad and another thing we have a change (sic) of command wherein our chief will be the one to report.[40]Q: In other words, what you are trying to tell us is that you know that you must report the incident that you saw and apprehend the perpetrators of this alleged incident but because of your fear to Mayor Natividad you did not report this obligation of yours?PROS. CAPULONG Objection, on the ground that it was answered already. And it is argumentative, Your Honor. COURT
Let the witness answer. WITNESS A: I was afraid of the Mayor. I feel that my family will be involved, sir. ATTY. MAURICIO (continuing) Q: Is it not a fact that Mayor Natividad the accused never threatened you of anything? A: That is it, sir. When we were pacifying him he told us we are tolerating this "even you I will kill you."[41] On this last point, SPO3 Reynaldo Daileg also testified on cross-examination, thus: Q: The question to you is were you also threatened of your life? A: The Mayor told us at that time that if we reported that incident, we will be finished, sir.[42]SPO2 Daniel Latosquin, for his part, stated: Q: Did you not tell Rebuyaco of what you know about this incident involving Severino Aquino during his investigation? A: No more, sir. Because of the words of the Mayor, were (sic) afraid. Q: What words of the Mayor were you afraid of? A: "Nobody will know this incident, if somebody will know you will be the one to be blamed." Q: Tell us why are you testifying if you are afraid of the words of the Mayor? A: Because, sir, there was already an investigation and so that the truth will come out and that there will be justice.[43]
"That on or about February 21, 1989 at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, at the Ramos Police Station, Municipality of Ramos, Province of Tarlac, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused Jun Cabaong fetched Severino L. Aquino from a singalong establishment and brought him to the headquarters of PNP Ramos, Tarlac. After a few minutes, accused Natividad together with bodyguards arrived at the Police headquarters and with malice aforethought and with deliberate intent to take the life of one Severino L. Aquino, accused Natividad willfully, unlawfully, suddenly, unexpectedly, in a treacherous manner, attacked and shot the head of the latter with the use of a 9 MM pistol which as a consequence, said Severino L. Aquino sustained mortal wounds causing his instantaneous death.[2] TSN, Testimony of SPO2 Felipe Padua, January 10, 1994, p. 36.
That said Sesinando "Boy" Llerina and Vicente Millado without having participated in said crime as principal did then and there, unlawfully and feloniously take part subsequent to the commission by carrying the lifeless body of Severino Aquino into the municipal ambulance and drove the said vehicle towards a place somewhere in the vicinity of Brgy. San Miguel, Guimba, Nueva Ecija and dumped the lifeless body of Severino Aquino in said place with the intention of hiding the same.
That as a consequence of the aforementioned criminal act of the accused, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to recover civil damages pursuant to the provision of law.
Contrary to law." (Rollo, p. 12).