People v. Gornes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Nicasio Gornes, Raul Vilar, and several John Does were charged with murder for allegedly killing Eugenia Lastimoso on November 19, 1988. Only Nicasio Gornes was arrested. The prosecution alleged that the accused, with abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation, conspired to assault, attack, stab, and shoot the victim, causing her death. The prosecution presented two eyewitnesses, Pacita Veriña and Teresita Lastimoso, who are the victim's twin daughters and Nicasio Gornes' first cousins. They testified that Nicasio Gornes and Raul Vilar arrived at their house with about twenty other persons. Nicasio Gornes then stabbed their mother, Eugenia Lastimoso, several times on the chest. As the victim ran downstairs, Nicasio Gornes shot her at the back, and Raul Vilar then shot her on the head, causing instant death. The witnesses claimed the motive was the victim's suspected role as a military informer. They also testified that they were threatened by the accused and Raul Vilar, which explained the delay in reporting the crime. The defense presented Nicasio Gornes, who denied the killing and claimed he was doing farm work at the time. His alibi was corroborated by his sister, who stated the travel time from the crime scene to his claimed location was longer than admitted by Nicasio. Procedural History: The Municipal Circuit Trial Court forwarded the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) after Nicasio Gornes waived preliminary investigation. The RTC, on January 15, 1992, found Nicasio Gornes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with an indemnity of P40,000.00. The RTC found the prosecution witnesses' identification credible, established motive, and considered the alibi weak. The Petition: Nicasio Gornes appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution's testimony, citing inconsistencies, the victim's ability to run after being stabbed, the alleged motive of revenge due to his suspected NPA membership, the delay in reporting, and the unsubstantiated claim of threats.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and whether the alibi of the accused is sufficient to overcome the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. Whether the delay in reporting the crime is fatal to the prosecution's case. Whether the witnesses implicated the accused due to a motive of revenge and whether the victim's ability to run after being stabbed is impossible. Whether the indemnity awarded is proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding Nicasio Gornes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, but increased the indemnity to P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of prosecution witnesses and positive identification, and the accused's alibi: The Court reiterated the rule that appellate courts generally do not disturb the findings of the trial court on the issue of credibility, as the trial court is in a better position to observe the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying. The prosecution witnesses, Pacita Veriña and Teresita Lastimoso, positively identified Nicasio Gornes as the perpetrator. Pacita Veriña's testimony detailed how Nicasio Gornes greeted her mother, conversed with her for about five minutes, and then repeatedly stabbed her with a hunting knife. She further testified that her mother ran downstairs and was shot at the back by Nicasio Gornes with a long firearm. Teresita Lastimoso corroborated this account, stating that Nicasio Gornes stabbed her mother multiple times with a hunting knife, and after the victim ran downstairs, Nicasio Gornes followed and shot her at the back with a long firearm. The Court found no reason to doubt this positive identification, noting the witnesses' proximity to the incident and the clarity of their descriptions. The Court found the alibi of Nicasio Gornes to be weak and unconvincing, especially when pitted against the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. The defense claimed Nicasio was doing farm work in sitio Tolong, which is a five-hour walk from the crime scene according to his testimony, but eleven hours according to his sister. The Court noted that alibi is inherently weak and easily fabricated, and in this case, it failed to overcome the strong evidence presented by the prosecution. The discrepancy in the travel time further weakened the alibi. The Court emphasized that for an alibi to be credible, it must be so convincing as to preclude any possibility of the accused being present at the scene of the crime, which was not achieved here. On the delay in reporting the crime: The Court held that delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness if the delay is satisfactorily explained. In this case, the delay of over three years was attributed to threats made by the accused and Raul Vilar against the victim's family. The witnesses testified that they feared reprisal from the accused and his companions, who were allegedly members of the NPA and frequented their town. The Court found this explanation satisfactory, especially considering the isolated location of the victim's family and the active presence of the NPA in the area at the time. The witnesses were emboldened to come forward only after the accused was arrested. On the motive and relationship, and the victim's ability to run after being stabbed: The Court dismissed the accused's contention that the witnesses implicated him due to a motive of revenge for his suspected NPA membership and their mother's death by the NPA. The Court found it hard to believe that close relatives (first cousins) would falsely testify against each other without any apparent ill-feeling or quarrel. The Court presumed good faith on the part of the prosecution witnesses, stating that it is against the natural order of events for them to falsely testify against the appellant if he had no involvement in the crime. The accused's self-serving declaration was not supported by any evidence. The Court found no basis to the claim that it was impossible for Eugenia Lastimoso to have run after being stabbed. Since no post-mortem examination was conducted, the gravity of the stab wounds could not be speculated upon. The Court noted that wounds to major blood vessels do not necessarily prevent a person from exercising voluntary acts or running a certain distance, and the victim's determination to escape was a natural reaction. The victim was 42 years old and not suffering from any physical disability. On the indemnity: The Court increased the indemnity from P40,000.00 to P50,000.00 in accordance with the prevailing policy of the Supreme Court at that time.
Main Doctrine
The positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses, coupled with the failure to establish a credible alibi and the satisfactory explanation for the delay in reporting the crime due to threats, are sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.