People v. Pacabes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Napoleon M. Pacabes, Jose Durano y Maligad, and Otik Echavaria were charged with Murder for the killing of Rizalino Ermac. The Information alleged that on August 23, 1979, at about 11:00 p.m., in Cebu City, the accused, armed with a bolo and a cane, conniving and confederating together, with deliberate intent, treachery, and evident premeditation, suddenly attacked Rizalino Ermac, stabbing and striking him, causing severe hemorrhage and his subsequent death. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. Otik Echavaria's whereabouts remained unknown. After trial, the Circuit Criminal Court of Cebu City found Napoleon M. Pacabes guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victim. Jose Durano y Maligad was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. Napoleon M. Pacabes appealed the decision. The Petition: The defendant-appellant, Napoleon M. Pacabes, appealed his conviction, challenging the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and arguing that the trial court discriminated against him by convicting him based on the same evidence that acquitted Jose Durano.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the appellant for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite alleged inconsistencies and their failure to immediately come forward. Whether the trial court discriminated against the appellant by convicting him based on the same evidence that acquitted his co-accused.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court finding Napoleon M. Pacabes guilty of murder is affirmed, with the modification that the indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the victim is increased to P30,000.00. The conviction stands, and the penalty of reclusion perpetua is upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the appellant for the crime of murder: The Court found that the guilt of the appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Two eyewitnesses categorically stated that they saw the appellant hack the deceased on the left chest near the shoulder and stab him on the upper arms and body. This testimony was corroborated by the autopsy report, which detailed multiple incised and stab wounds on the deceased's body and extremities. The witnesses had no apparent motive to testify falsely, and their identification of the appellant was reliable given that they were neighbors and long-time residents of the vicinity. Furthermore, the scene of the crime was well-illuminated by a mercury lamp, negating any possibility of mistaken identity. On the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their failure to immediately come forward: The Court held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible. While there were minor discrepancies in their statements, these referred to trivial details that did not destroy the overall probative value of their testimonies. The Court also noted that the failure of a witness to report a crime immediately to the police should not be taken against them, as it is common for people to be reluctant to get involved in criminal cases. The Court also addressed the issue of Victoriana Gorre being a surprise witness, stating that there is no law requiring a witness's testimony to be reduced to writing beforehand, nor is it a condition precedent to execute an affidavit. The prosecution is also allowed to call witnesses not named in the information, as the accused's right is to know the accusation, not necessarily all the witnesses in advance. On the alleged discrimination by the trial court: The contention that the trial court discriminated against the appellant by convicting him based on the same evidence that acquitted Jose Durano was deemed without merit. The Court reiterated the established rule that a witness's testimony may be believed in part and disbelieved in part. The trial court was not bound to disregard the entire testimony of Myrna Rosell simply because it found her testimony regarding Jose Durano to be prevaricated. The court may accept parts of a witness's testimony as proper, even if other parts are found to be false, provided there is corroborative evidence and the probabilities of the case support it. In this instance, the eyewitness accounts and the autopsy findings corroborated the appellant's involvement.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for murder, holding that treachery was present as the attack was sudden and ensured no risk to the assailants. The Court also upheld the trial court's assessment of eyewitness credibility despite minor inconsistencies, emphasizing that the failure to immediately report a crime does not automatically diminish a witness's credibility. The indemnity for the heirs was increased.