|
SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 107245. December 17, 1999] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIPE ABORDO, RICARDO AREBALO, DANIEL ABORDO and ANICETO JALANDONI, accused-appellants. D E C I S I O N QUISUMBING, J.: On appeal is the decision[1] of the Court of Appeals dated January 15, 1992, in CA-G.R. CR No. 10910, which affirmed the judgment on March 14, 1990, of the Regional Trial Court of Tagum, Davao, Branch I, in Criminal Case No. 6856 for Murder.[2] The information against accused-appellants Felipe Abordo, Daniel Abordo, Ricardo Arebalo and Aniceto Jalandoni alleged: “That on or about June 19, 1988, in the Municipality of Asuncion, Province of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with treachery and evident premeditation, with intent to kill, armed with pieces of wood and stones, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stike (sic) one Porferio Lubiano, thereby inflicting upon him injuries which caused his death, and further causing actual, moral, and compensatory damages to the heirs of the victim. Contrary to law."[3] Upon arraignment, all four accused entered a plea of not guilty. After trial, the court decreed in its judgment as follows: “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the guilt of Felipe Abordo, Ricardo Arebalo, Daniel Abordo and Aniceto Jalandoni having been proven beyond reasonable doubt they are hereby sentenced pursuant to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code to an imprisonment of 17 years, 4 months and 1 day, minimum, to 20 years, maximum, of Reclusion Temporal, and to indemnify in solidum the heirs of Porfirio Lubiano for P30,000.00. SO ORDERED."[4] The accused appealed, assigning the following errors in their appeal brief, to wit: “I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT FELIPE ABORDO ALONE IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER, IN KILLING PORFERIO LUBIANO, BASED ON HIS VOLUNTARY ADMISSION IN OPEN COURT AND WAS SUBJECTED TO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION; and II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ABSOLVING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS RICARDO AREBALO, DANIEL ABORDO AND ANECITO (sic) JALANDONI OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN THIS CASE BASED ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN OVERCOME BY THE PROSECUTION."[5] On January 15, 1992, the Court of Appeals promulgated its assailed decision, disposing as follows: “WHEREFORE, the trial court’s judgment convicting appellants Felipe Abordo, Daniel Abordo, Ricardo Arevalo, and Aniceto Jalandoni of murder is hereby AFFIRMED; the indeterminate sentence imposed on appellant Felipe Abordo, which is imprisonment of 17 years, 4 months and 1 day as minimum, to 20 years as maximum, is also AFFIRMED except that the death indemnity which all four appellants were ordered to pay in solidum to the heirs of Porfirio Lubiano is hereby increased from P30,000 to P50,000.00; and since the appropriate penalty imposable on appellants Daniel Abordo, Ricardo Arevalo, and Aniceto Jalandoni, there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, is reclusion perpetua which is the medium period of the prescribed penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, pursuant to Article 248 in relation to Article 64 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, we hereby CERTIFY this case for review. Accordingly, let the whole record of this case be forwarded immediately to the Supreme Court. SO ORDERED."[6] Before us, appellants re-submit their brief and reply brief filed with the Court of Appeals, in effect assigning the same errors they raised before said court.[7] They pray that the decision of the trial court be modified, thereby acquitting appellants Ricardo Arebalo, Daniel Abordo, and Aniceto Jalandoni; and sentencing Felipe Abordo only to suffer the penalty for murder, based on his admission of culpability for the killing, but crediting him with two mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and incomplete self-defense.[8] We now proceed to review the evidence on record for the prosecution as well as the defense. As found by the trial court, the prosecution’s version of the incident is as follows: “The mother of the accused Abordos came early morning to the residence of the barrio councilman-Hermogenes Pan – Purok 3 of Sabañgan, Asuncion, Davao requesting that he summon for a conference Porferio Lubiano because of his (sic) talks that Ricardo Arebalo convinced him to rob of (sic) cacao in the residence of Ireneo Longakit. Pan complied and a conference was held at the Purok Hall on 19 June 1988. In attendance were Porferio Lubiano, Felipe Abordo, Daniel Abordo, Ciriaco Abordo, Maxima Abordo, Ricardo Arebalo, Conchita Abasolo, Teresita Abasolo and Aniceto Jalandoni. Apparently the Abordo family were in full attendance in that conciliation conference presided by Hermogenes Pan. In the confrontation, Porferio Lubiano reiterated what Ricardo Arebalo told him that they rob [the] Longakit residence. However Ricardo denied such allegation as fabricated. Ricardo Arebalo is the nephew of Maxima[,] mother of the accused Abordos. The Abordo family felt strongly against the (sic) Lubiano[‘s] assertions, hence Maxima insisted that the latter be required to appear in the conciliation conference. The parties appeared and [the conciliation conference] was predominantly attended by the Abordos. Aniceto Jalandoni, who was a gambling barcada of Felipe Abordo attended since he was requested by Hermogenes to attend and witness the conciliation proceedings. The parties reported in (sic) the house of Hermogenes Pan but was (sic) transferred to Purok 3 Hall which is 40 meters away and some persons attended. It commenced at more or less 1:30 P.M.. While the proceedings were going on, prosecution asserted that Aniceto Jalandoni, although he was not related to the Abordos[,] seems the one who reacted adversely, he was very angry. There were instances that (sic) he interferred in the conciliation. He approached Lubiano while the proceedings was on (sic), he raised his shirt and then pronounced that he (Lubiano) has no knife. Aniceto Jalandoni, not only behaved obstructively, but he also got hold of Lubiano’s arm insisting that they should go already to Purok 4 eventhough (sic) Hermogenes was still presiding on (sic) the conference, telling Lubiano, ‘let us go now to Purok 4 because Tarcilo Orillo is waiting and he is angry with you.' Lubiano in company with the accused left for Purok 4. Jalandoni placed his arm on the shoulder of Lubiano [and] so with Felipe Abordo on the other side. Daniel Abordo and Ricardo Arebalo were with them. At a distance of 30 meters, Hermogenes called back Lubiano requiring him to pay P15.00 ordinance fee for conciliation, but [the latter] failed [to pay] because he has no money promising (sic) to pay when he comes back. Lubiano rejoined the group of Jalandoni, Abordo and Arebalo who waited for him and continued in the same relative position to Purok 4. Before reaching this Purok, they have to pass Gaga Creek which is roughly around 300 meters from Purok 3 where they attended in (sic) the conciliation. It was at this point thereon (sic) that Hermogenes Pan followed them secretly because he was suspicious of the actuations of the accused shown during the conference. Upon arriving at the creek he hid in the grasses around 30 meters away and there he saw Daniel Abordo took hold of the arm of Porferio Lubiano and also with Arebalo (sic) the other arm, and while on (sic) that situation Aniceto Jalandoni took a piece of wood and hit Lubiano. The victim fell down and while lying face downward, Felipe Abordo picked up a stone and dropped it on the back of the head of Lubiano. When he saw this incident that occurred more or less at 2:45 P.M. he was afraid and could not do anything because the accused are (sic) really very brave, so he ran towards Purok 3 [and] told the people about the incident. They responded and many went with him to the scene where they saw Lubiano on a narra tree. They found plenty of contusions on his body, the back of his head was broken and was full of blood. There was [a] dent caused by the stone dropped on the head, [and] the brain came out. Lubiano was still alive and they placed him on a cradle and brought [him] to Dr. Domecillo at Sitio Ernan but was pronounced dead on arrival – around 15 minutes thereafter."[9] In contrast, as summarized by the trial court, the version of the defense is as follows: “Those who actually attended the conciliation were Porfirio Lubiano, Ricardo Arebalo, Aniceto Jalandoni, Felipe Abordo who just dropped by to listen. Daniel Abordo was only playing basketball he did not attend the conciliation. After the conference, Lubiano allegedly told Felipe Abordo that they remain (sic) to drink tuba. Felipe Abordo accepted Lubiano’s invitation, and they were at the store of Cardo Abasolo. Drinking tuba with them were: Ciriaco Abordo – father of Abordo Maxima Abordo – mother of Abordo Hermogenes Pan Jose Pan Dionie Plasabas Ciriaco Abordo ordered 2 gallons of tuba and after consuming this, Hermogenes allegedly wanted to drink more so Ciriaco ordered some more. After consuming the first order of 2 gallons, Lubiano invited Felipe Abordo to a cockfight at Purok 4. Aniceto Jalandoni testified on his behalf that after the conciliation he went home to Purok 9 a distance of 5 kilometers from Purok 3, [while] Daniel Abordo and Ricardo Arebalo, as testified by Ciriaco Abordo father of the Abordos went to Purok 7. Daniel and Ricardo are cousins, and the latter is living with Ciriaco. The cockfight that they intended to go [to] was at Purok 4 and they have to pass Gaga Creek. While walking towards the creek, Lubiano told Felipe that he was already tipsy, drunk and groggy. Felipe insisted that he was on (sic) his correct senses. Felipe declared that at a distance of around 8 meters before reaching the creek they were walking together. His left hand was clasping the right hand of Lubiano and upon reaching the creek Lubiano released his hand and suddenly pulled his knife and immediately thrust (sic) towards him (Felipe) and so he faced him and stepped backward with his right foot and the other foot pivoting with his left hand parrying the thrust of Lubiano hitting his small left finger. Lubiano again stabbed him so he picked up a stone and thrust (sic) it towards the center of his face between the two eyebrows. Lubiano was hit and he turned around and fall (sic) down, with his two hands holding the ground and his body facing the ground at around one (1) foot in height – as witness demonstrated in court. At this position, Felipe declared – that he was already out of his correct senses. (sic) so he thrust (sic) the stone at the right portion of his head above the right ear. He explained that he was very angry, forgot and lost his senses because of the wound inflicted on his small left finger. Thus, Lubiano was hit many times on his left face, right face, and has many injuries (TSN 19-20 Aug. 16, 1989). He said the stone he used in hitting Lubiano – was enough for him to grasp and he continously hit it towards his (sic) head when he was already on the ground. He looked at Lubiano, who was dying, then he recovered his senses, and surrendered to barangay councilor Indong Petrobos at Purok 4 informing the latter that he killed a person. Felipe mentioned that he met Aniceto Jalandoni at Purok 4 when he surrendered."[10] In convicting all the accused, the trial court found worthy of credence the testimonies for the prosecution. It found the defenses of alibi and denial by the accused unavailing. Appellants now contend that the trial court convicted them on the basis of the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Hermogenes Pan, which is allegedly not worthy of belief. Appellants allege that it was highly impossible for Pan to have witnessed the alleged commission of the crime as he was drinking all the time that afternoon of June 19, 1988, in the company of Ciriaco Abordo, Jose Pan, Dionisio Plasabas, and the store owner until the time that he was informed of the victim’s death.[11] Further, appellants Daniel Abordo, Ricardo Arebalo and Aniceto Jalandoni allege that their defense of alibi should have been appreciated, as it was highly impossible for them to be at the place where the crime was committed. Consequently, they claim that the trial court erred in finding them culpable for the victim’s death. They add that the prosecution failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the appellants.[12] However, the Court of Appeals accepted the trial court’s findings and conclusions. It affirmed the conviction of the appellants, but raised the penalty imposed upon Daniel Abordo, Aniceto Jalandoni and Ricardo Arebalo to reclusion perpetua, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances in their case.[13] It also raised the indemnity imposed upon appellants from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00, in line with current jurisprudence. Given the errors assigned by appellants in their briefs, now, essentially the issue before us involves the credibility of witnesses, especially the eyewitness to the killing of the victim Porferio Lubiano. For the trial court, and later the respondent appellate court, anchored the finding of guilt of accused-appellants on the testimony of eyewitness Hermogenes Pan. Although it is well-settled that findings of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight, even finality, on appeal, that rule admits of an exception, that is if and when the trial court failed to appreciate certain facts and circumstances which, if taken into account, would materially affect the result of the case.[14] We are, therefore, constrained to scrutinize Pan’s testimony with painstaking care. On the witness stand, Pan positively testified that he saw the four accused-appellants perpetrate the crime. He said that he had seen them with Porferio Lubiano walk towards Purok 4 after the conciliation proceedings he conducted at Purok 3 were over.[15] Pan had secretly followed the group until Gaga Creek, where he witnessed Daniel Abordo and Ricardo Arebalo take hold of the arms of Lubiano, enabling Aniceto Jalandoni to hit him with a piece of wood. Lubiano fell to the ground, lying face downward. Pan then saw Felipe Abordo pick up a stone and drop it on the back of the head of the prostrate victim.[16] Earlier, during the conciliation proceedings, Pan noticed that Aniceto Jalandoni attempted to pull Lubiano out of the purok hall three times.[17] He also saw Jalandoni pull up the shirt of Lubiano, and declare that Lubiano had no hunting knife on him. Having observed these incidents, Pan concluded that “they have intention (sic) against Porferio Lubiano,"[18] hence Pan followed the group secretly. Pan’s testimony impressed the trial court for being direct and succinct. As shown by his demeanor and the manner he answered questions propounded by both prosecution and defense counsels, the trial court found Pan a credible and convincing witness.[19] Pan’s testimony finds support in the testimonies of his cousin Jose Pan and of Dionisio Plasabas, who both stated that they saw all the four appellants leave for Purok 4 together with Porferio Lubiano after the conciliation proceedings were concluded.[20] They said that all the four appellants were present during the conciliation conference earlier.[21] They also testified that while the five walked towards Purok 4, two of the appellants were holding Porferio Lubiano by his shoulders.[22] Witness Jose Pan also confirmed that during the conciliation proceedings, Aniceto Jalandoni lifted the shirt of Lubiano and remarked that the victim had no hunting knife.[23] Jose Pan and Plasabas both testified that it was also Jalandoni who said that Lubiano was summoned by the purok leader of Purok 4, which is why they left for that place.[24] While the five were walking towards Purok 4, Jose Pan did not notice Hermogenes Pan anymore around the premises where the conciliation was conducted.[25] Fifteen minutes later, both Jose Pan and Plasabas saw Hermogenes Pan running towards them, telling them that Lubiano had been killed.[26][27] Jose Pan also testified that during the conciliation conference, he had heard from appellants that “they are going to hit Porferio (Lubiano)."[28] Hermogenes identified the four appellants as the killers of Lubiano. To blunt the prosecution’s testimonial evidence, appellant Aniceto Jalandoni testified that he and eyewitness Hermogenes Pan had certain differences. He claimed that Pan had earlier told him to stop the “tabo” or gathering of people in Purok 9, where Jalandoni was a purok leader, because Jalandoni’s “tabo” was attracting people away from Pan’s own “tabo” in Purok 3.[29] It appears that such gatherings were venues for gambling and fairs where people could buy various goods. |
