People Of The Philippines v. Uy

PARAS, J.:

This is an appeal from the of the Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte in Criminal Case No. 6586 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. WHEREFORE,Reclusion Perpetua , and to indemnify the heirs of Felino Bantanos in the sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment in cases of insolvency. SO ORDERED. (RTC Decision, Rollo , pp. 33-34) On September 12, 1984, Alfredo F. Morados, P/Lt.Ibid., p.

12).Ibid., p. 13).Ibid., p.14) and fixed the same at P30,000.00 (Ibid., p. 17).prima facie case against both accused after conducting a preliminary examination of the complainant and her witnesses and the accused having waived their rights to present their evidence by their failure to submit their counteraffidavits and those of their witnesses, the Municipal Trial Judge ordered that the records of the case be forwarded to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, Government Center, Candahug, Palo, Leyte for further proceedings (Ibid., p.

32). That on or about the 8th day Contrary to law. (Original Records, p.

1) Upon Ibid., pp. 37). Thereafter, trial ensued. The prosecution presented five (5) witnesses, namely: Dr. Edilberto Trinidad, Sonia Bantanos-Andrada, Laurentino Pla, Fiscal Hernan de Leon and Arnulfo Bantanos, while the defense presented Ciriaco Jamora, Rosita Catindoy, Virginia Poblete, Pfc.

Dr. Edilberto Trinidad, Municipal Health Officer of Alangalang, Leyte, testified that he conducted a post-mortem Sonia Bantanos-Andrada, sister of the victim, testified that on September 8, 1984, at about 5:30 in the afternoon while she was inside their house cuddling her eight-month old child, she heard a woman shout "Ouch, don't do that!". Regarding the possible motive of the assault, she testified that on July 23, 1983, her brother filed a complaint against Gil Uy, Romeo Mesina, Antonio Mesina and Berting Catalla before their Barangay Captain Laurentino Pla for challenging him to a fight. Laurentino Pla, Barangay Captain of Barangay Blumentritt, Alangalang, Leyte, took the witness stand and testified that on July 23, 1983, the deceased Felino Bantanos and his wife, Salvacion Bantanos, went to his office to complain that Gil Uy, Tomas Mesina, Romeo Mesina, Antonio Mesina and Berting Catalla challenged them to a fight.

Hernan de Leon, Fourth Assistant Provincial fiscal of Leyte, testified that he was the one who conducted the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. 6586 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Arnulfo Bantanos, younger brother of the deceased, testified on the aspect of damages. He stated that he incurred expenses in the total amount of' P3,550.00, P1,400.00 of which represents the costs of the coffin and the pantheon which are the only ones supported by receipts. The first defense witness to take the witness stand was Ciriaco Jamora, a retired policeman.Ibid., pp. 715).

On cross examination, he testified that he did not submit a police report regarding the matter (Ibid., p. 16) neither was he the one who recorded it on the police blotter since when he went back to the office, the incident was already recorded (Ibid., p. 35).

Rosita Catindoy, a resident of Santisima Trinidad St., Alangalang, Leyte, testified that in the afternoon of September 8, 1984, they went to the house of Gil Uy to collect the amount of P30.00 which the latter owed her husband, Dominador Catindoy. Virginita Poblete, a resident of San Roque St., Alangalang, Leyte, testified that in the evening of September 8, 1984, Rogelio Jolito came up their house to surrender to her husband, Pat. Pfc.

Leovegildo Gil Uy testified that the day in question was the birthday of his daughter hence, there was a celebration in their house. Later Ibid., pp. 10-12). He finds the declarations of Sonia Bantanos-Andrada unbelievable since he cannot possibly stab the victim from behind and inflict the wound in front of the victim.Ibid., p.

13). On cross-examination, he admitted having been convicted of the crime of Homicide in Criminal Case No. 2093 by the Court of First Instance of Leyte and Theft in Criminal Case No. 61942 in Manila.Ibid., pp. 18-20). As aforementioned, the trial court convicted Gil Uy of the crime of Murder qualified by treachery and with Hence, this appeal.

The main issue in the case at bar is the credibility of witnesses.Rollo , p. 50). Appellee, through the Solicitor General, contends that these contradictions refer to minor details which could be dispensed with since they are not the decisive factors in her testimony.Rollo , The appeal is devoid of merit.

It is well settled that regarding the credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court should not be disturbed on appeal, unless some facts or circumstances may have been overlooked that may otherwise affect the result of the case. The appellant failed to show any justification to depart from this rule (People vs. Kyamko, 192 SCRA 374 [December 18, 1990]). Besides the testimony of the defense witnesses did not generally negate the active participation of Gil Uy in the killing.

For instance, the retires policeman Ciriaco Jamora merely testified on the existence of possible trouble, and he said nothing about who the culprits were. Another defense witness, Rosita Catindoy, merely referred to what she referred to as Rogelio' (not Gil Uy's intent to surrender). This testimony did not in any way help appellant Gil Uy.

The two policemen who testified presumably for the defense did not really say anything substantial for when they arrived at the scene, everything was already over. On the other hand, merely relationship to the victim need not automatically tarnish the testimony of the witness. When there is no showing of improper motive on the part of the witnesses for testifying against the accused, the fact that they are related to the victim does not render their clear and positive testimony less worthy of full faith and credit.

On the contrary, their natural interest in securing the conviction of the guilty would prevent them from implicating persons other than the culprits, for otherwise, the latter would thereby gain immunity (People vs. De Mesa, 188 SCRA 48 [July 28, 1990]). What is more important is that they have positively identified the accused as the assailant (People vs. Bocatcat, Sr., 188 SCRA 175 [July 31, 1990]). In the case at bar, Sonia Bantanos-Andrada, sister of the victim, positively identified appellant Gil Uy as the assailant who came from behind and stabbed her brother with a long knife, hitting the latter in a portion below the left armpit.

She further recounted that after her brother has fallen to the ground, the other accused, Rogelio Jolito, armed with a shorter knife, joined Gil Uy in stabbing her brother. This jibes with the autopsy report and testimony of Dr. Edilberto Trinidad, who was admitted by the defense as an expert witness, that two (2) of the six (6) wounds sustained by the victim were located at the left side of his back and that more than one (1) weapon was used on him. This collaborating testimony of the doctor who conducted the autopsy on the victim renders the testimony of the eyewitnesses credible (People vs. Encipido, 146 SCRA 478 [December 29, 1986]).

This Court had likewise held that numerous wounds in the body of the victim indicate plurality of assailants (People vs. Laredo, 185 SCRA 383 [May 14, 1990]). Appellant's contention that no sufficient motive can be attributed to him in killing Felino Bantanos is untenable.

Motive is essential only where there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit and not where the accused was positively identified as the assailant, as in the case at bar (People vs. Yeban, 190 SCRA 409 [October 11, 1990]). Greater weight is given to the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witness than the accused's denial and explanation concerning the commission of the crime (People vs. De Mesa, supra.). The Court a quo convicted appellant Gil Uy of the crime of Murder qualified by treachery, and noted the presence of conspiracy and the aggravating circumstances of recidivism since appellant had previously been convicted of the crime of Homicide in Criminal Case No. 2093 by the then Court of First Instance of Leyte.

Well settled is the rule that the circumstances that would qualify the killing to murder must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself (People vs. Raquipo, 188 SCRA 571 [August 13, 1990]). For alevosia or treachery to be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, the offender should have employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the crime which tended directly and specifically to insure its execution without any risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make (People vs. Cempron, 187 SCRA 248 [July 6, 1990]). Hence, the lower court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery when it ruled that: The crime committed by the accused is murder qualified by treachery because while Rogelio Jolito had his arm on the shoulder of Felino Bantanos, Gil Uy without the least warning, came from behind and stabbed Felino Bantanos hitting the latter below his left armpit and the left side of his chest, causing Felino to fall and while already on the ground Gil Uy and Rogelio Jolito took turns in stabbing Felino Bantanos thereby employing means, methods and forms in the execution, without risk to themselves arising from the defense which Felino Bantanos might make.

(RTC Decision, Rollo , p. 33) A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. While proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence, the agreement itself may be inferred from the conduct of the parties disclosing a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense (People vs. De la Cruz, 190 SCRA 328 [October 5, 1990]).

It is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all the accused manifested by their acts a common intent or desire to attack so that the act of one accused becomes the act of all (People vs. Gupo, 190 SCRA 7 [September 24, 1990]). In the case at bar, the trial court noted the presence of conspiracy in this manner: According to the circumstances of the case conspiracy exists where the accused in concert toward a common purpose. The fact that Rogelio Jolito had his arm on the shoulder of the victim, and while at the situation Gil Uy went at the back of the two and without warning stabbed Felino Bantanos from behind, and when Felino Bantanos was already prostrate on the ground took turns in stabbing their victim, show unequivocably the accused Gil Uy and Rogelio Jolito were in concert toward a common purpose to finish their victim to death.

. . .

(RTC Decision, Rollo , p. 32) PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Regalado and Nocon, JJ., concur.