People v. Canamo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellants Nicolas Canamo, Antonio Canamo, Juancho Mahusay, and Lito Bulangan were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder by the Circuit Criminal Court of Cebu City for the killing of Henry Vercide. The prosecution presented evidence that on the evening of May 14, 1981, witnesses Norman Inocando and Alden Cobcoban saw the four appellants attack and assault Henry Vercide with their respective weapons (bolo, hunting knife, saw, and club). Vercide slumped to the ground and later died. An autopsy revealed massive hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab, hack, and incised wounds on the head, body, and extremities. Procedural History: The trial court convicted all four appellants of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, and to pay costs. The Petition: The accused-appellants appealed, raising several errors, including the trial court's credence to prosecution witnesses, conviction of Nicolas Canamo, Juancho Mahusay, and Lito Bulangan despite Antonio Canamo's admission of sole responsibility, and failure to appreciate voluntary surrender for Antonio Canamo.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Norman Inocando and Alden Cobcoban. Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellants Nicolas Canamo, Juancho Mahusay, and Lito Bulangan, despite the admission of Antonio Canamo owning sole responsibility for the offense. Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of accused Antonio Canamo.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court with modifications. The penalty imposed on appellant Antonio Canamo was reduced by appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. All appellants were ordered to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the deceased Henry Vercide in the amount of P30,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of prosecution witnesses: The Court held that the trial court did not err in giving credence to the testimonies of eyewitnesses Norman Inocando and Alden Cobcoban. These witnesses positively identified the accused-appellants and described the mode of attack. Their testimonies were corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Jesus P. Cerna, who testified that at least two persons inflicted the wounds using at least three different kinds of weapons, which aligns with the eyewitness accounts of the appellants using a bolo, hunting knife, saw, and club. The Court reiterated the rule that where the issue is one of credibility, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court unless plainly overlooked facts of substance and value, which was not demonstrated by the appellants. On the conviction of Nicolas Canamo, Juancho Mahusay, and Lito Bulangan despite Antonio Canamo's confession: The Court rejected Antonio Canamo's confession of sole responsibility. The medical findings and the eyewitness testimonies clearly indicated that multiple individuals, using different weapons, inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased. Dr. Cerna's testimony, in particular, established that it was impossible for only one person to have inflicted all the wounds using the various weapons described. Therefore, the positive identification by the eyewitnesses of the other appellants as participants in the crime belied their defenses of denial and alibi. The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty and the absence of imputed ulterior motives to the eyewitnesses further strengthened their credibility. On the appreciation of voluntary surrender for Antonio Canamo: The Court agreed with the appellants that the trial court erred in not considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of Antonio Canamo. The Court found that Antonio Canamo presented himself to the authorities after his co-accused, including his father, had already been arrested. This surrender was deemed voluntary as there was no proof to the contrary. The requisites for voluntary surrender were met: (a) the offender had not been actually arrested, (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority, and (c) the surrender was voluntary. Consequently, this mitigating circumstance warranted a reduction in the penalty imposed on Antonio Canamo.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction of the appellants for murder but modified the penalty for Antonio Canamo by appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, reducing his sentence. The Court also clarified that the testimonies of eyewitnesses, when positive and without imputed motive, are entitled to full faith and credit, and that the medical findings corroborated the eyewitness accounts regarding the commission of the crime by multiple assailants using different weapons.