People v. Gani
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused Monga Gani, Guiabar Kintuan, Gentem Kintuan, Mama Ganto, and Mama Kasim were charged with theft of large cattle (Criminal Case No. 24) and robbery in band with homicide and multiple attempted homicide (Criminal Case No. 25), both allegedly committed on January 28, 1978. The prosecution moved for the consolidation of the two cases, which was granted, and Criminal Case No. 24 was dismissed as its allegations were included in the amended information for Criminal Case No. 25. The amended information charged the accused, along with others at large, with robbery in band with homicide and multiple attempted homicide, detailing the taking of cash, clothing, jewelry, rice, cooking pots, eyeglasses, a belt, shoes, chickens, and a banca, with a total value of P17,460.00. It also alleged the killing of Dindang Sultan and the attempted killing of Pablo Ugalingan, Shariff Ugalingan, Albano Ugalingan, and Quezon Ugalingan by firing upon them with high-powered guns. The accused pleaded not guilty. Guiabar Kintuan escaped from jail on July 23, 1979, after the prosecution rested its case. Monga Gani, Gentem Kintuan, and Mama Ganto escaped on January 30, 1980, after the presentation of the third defense witness. Only Mama Kasim remained in custody throughout the trial. The trial court found all accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery in band with homicide and sentenced them to death, ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the deceased and the owners of the stolen property. The People's version of the incident described Dindang Sultan and her sons Pablo, Quezon, and Shariff Ugalingan walking on a dike when two groups of armed men, including the appellants, fired at them. Dindang Sultan was hit and fell, while her sons retreated. The armed men approached and continued firing at her. The sons escaped and later found their mother's body with multiple gunshot and hack wounds. They also discovered various personal belongings missing from their homes. Pablo and Shariff Ugalingan identified the appellants in sworn statements and court testimonies. The defense argued that the testimonies of Pablo and Shariff were biased and unreliable, that the trial court disregarded defense witnesses, and that the escape of co-accused should not be used against Mama Kasim. The defense presented alibi for the accused. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Cotabato, Branch VI, consolidated Criminal Case No. 24 (theft of large cattle) with Criminal Case No. 25 (robbery in band with homicide and multiple attempted homicide) and dismissed Criminal Case No. 24. The accused were tried under an amended information for robbery in band with homicide and multiple attempted homicide. After the prosecution presented its evidence, Guiabar Kintuan escaped. Later, Monga Gani, Gentem Kintuan, and Mama Ganto also escaped. The trial court found all five accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery in band with homicide and sentenced them to death. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The accused-appellants appealed the decision of the trial court, assigning errors concerning the credibility of prosecution witnesses, the disregard of defense testimonies, and the consideration of the escape of co-accused as indicative of guilt.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on the testimonies of Pablo and Shariff Ugalingan. Whether the trial court erred in disregarding the testimonies of the defense witnesses and the alibi of the accused. Whether the escape of co-accused should be considered as indicative of guilt, particularly against Mama Kasim who remained in custody.
Ruling
The appealed judgment is affirmed with the modification that for lack of necessary votes, each of the accused shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the indemnity increased to P30,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of prosecution witnesses Pablo and Shariff Ugalingan: The Court found no reason to sustain the assignment of error regarding the alleged bias and unreliability of the testimonies of Pablo and Shariff Ugalingan. While they were the children of the deceased, their testimonies were not inherently biased, and there was no evidence of prior animosity between them and the accused. The Court noted that the accused themselves, including Monga Gani and Gentem Kintuan, testified that they had no misunderstanding with the Ugalingan family. The Court also addressed the defense's assertion that only two witnesses testified, stating that it is not for the appellants to dictate the number of witnesses the prosecution should present. Furthermore, the Court found that discrepancies in the affidavits and testimonies of simple farmers like Pablo and Shariff, who had limited educational attainment and were under emotional distress due to their mother's death, were understandable and did not necessarily impair their credibility. The Court emphasized that as long as the affidavits and testimonies agreed on the principal details of the crime, minor divergences would not be used to impugn their credibility. The convergent details included the firing by armed men, the death of their mother, and the taking of personal properties. On the disregard of defense testimonies and the alibi of the accused: The Court found no reason to sustain the assignment of error regarding the disregard of defense testimonies. The trial court is in a better position to assess the credibility of witnesses. The defense of alibi was deemed weak and insufficient to prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. The Court reiterated the rule that alibi must be satisfactorily proven, requiring the accused to be somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it be physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime. In this case, the residences of the accused were only 3 to 4 kilometers away from the scene of the crime, a distance that could be traversed in about 1.5 hours by walking. This proximity did not preclude the possibility of their presence at the crime scene. The Court cited People v. Manangan to support the view that a distance of eight kilometers, traversable in one and a half hours, does not make alibi physically impossible. Therefore, the alibi of the accused was too weak to overcome their positive identification as perpetrators of the crime. On the escape of co-accused as indicative of guilt: The Court affirmed the trial court's application of the rule that the act of escaping from custody during trial is indicative of guilt. This rule was applied only to the four accused who had escaped (Guiabar Kintuan, Monga Gani, Gentem Kintuan, and Mama Ganto). The Court clarified that Mama Kasim's guilt was proven by the testimonies of Pablo and Shariff Ugalingan, which also established the guilt of the four who escaped. The trial court's statement that the escape is indicative of guilt was supported by several Supreme Court decisions. The Court found no error in considering the escape of the accused as a factor contributing to the assessment of their guilt, especially when coupled with positive identification and the weakness of their alibi.
Main Doctrine
The escape of an accused during trial is indicative of guilt. Alibi is a weak defense when contradicted by positive identification. Discrepancies in affidavits of simple farmers, due to limited education and emotional distress, do not necessarily impair their credibility if principal details of the crime are consistent.