People v. Ompad, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellant, Bernardo Ompad, Jr., a.k.a. "Commander Brando," was charged with murder in two separate Informations. The first case involved the killing of Numeriano Pagente, a CHDF member, on June 2, 1983. Pagente was shot by five men while selling fish and was pursued and further shot until he fell. Ambrosio Barlaan, a CHDF member, witnessed the incident and identified Ompad, Jr. as the first to shoot Pagente. Barlaan claimed he remained silent due to fear of Ompad, Jr., who was known as an NPA hit-man. The second case involved the killing of Dionilo Barlaan, son of Ambrosio Barlaan and an NPA recruit, on August 5, 1984. Lucas Lamoste and Arsenio del Rio, former NPA members, testified that Ompad, Jr. shot Dionilo on the nape. Dionilo was suspected of being a military informer. His body was found with a gunshot wound on the nape, a shattered skull, and stab wounds. Lamoste and del Rio gave sworn statements implicating Ompad, Jr. after he was arrested in December 1985. Ambrosio Barlaan also gave a statement about the Pagente killing after learning of Ompad, Jr.'s arrest. Procedural History: After a joint trial, the Regional Trial Court found Bernardo Ompad, Jr. guilty of murder in both cases and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The accused-appellant appealed the decision. The Petition: The accused-appellant argued that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient for conviction, citing the delay of Ambrosio Barlaan in reporting the Pagente killing and the delay of Lamoste and del Rio in testifying about the Dionilo Barlaan killing, which only occurred after Ompad, Jr.'s apprehension.
Issue(s)
Whether the delay in the reporting of the killing of Numeriano Pagente by witness Ambrosio Barlaan casts reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused-appellant. Whether the delay in the testimony of witnesses Lucas Lamoste and Arsenio del Rio regarding the killing of Dionilo Barlaan is excusable and does not impair their credibility. Whether the accused-appellant's act of hiding, as a member of the NPA, can be considered evidence of guilt. Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of the murder of Numeriano Pagente. Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of the murder of Dionilo Barlaan.
Ruling
The Court acquitted Bernardo Ompad, Jr. in Crim. Case No. 3829 for the murder of Numeriano Pagente due to reasonable doubt. However, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in Crim. Case No. 3832, finding the accused-appellant guilty of the murder of Dionilo Barlaan, qualified by treachery, and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The award of civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00, with additional awards for loss of earning capacity and moral and exemplary damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the killing of Numeriano Pagente and the credibility of Ambrosio Barlaan: The Court found merit in the accused-appellant's contention regarding the delay of Ambrosio Barlaan in reporting the killing of Numeriano Pagente. Barlaan's testimony came more than two years after the incident and only after his son was killed by the accused-appellant. The Court noted that as a CHDF member, Barlaan should have immediately reported the incident. This prolonged silence, coupled with the fact that Barlaan had an "axe to grind" against Ompad, Jr., created serious doubt regarding his testimony's veracity. The Court cited People v. Quiritan where long silence of vital prosecution witnesses gave rise to suspicion of ill-motivation. Consequently, Ompad, Jr. was acquitted of Pagente's murder on reasonable doubt. On the killing of Dionilo Barlaan and the credibility of Lucas Lamoste and Arsenio del Rio: The Court found the delay of one year and four months on the part of Lamoste and del Rio in implicating the appellant to be excusable. As former NPA members, they could not be expected to report the incident to the authorities while still part of the organization. Their disclosure that they were forced to join the NPA due to fear was considered well-taken. It was only after they left the communist movement and the accused-appellant was arrested that they gathered enough courage to testify. The Court reiterated the principle that delay in divulging the names of perpetrators, if sufficiently explained, does not impair the credibility of the witness, citing People v. Pascua and People v. Villa. The Court held that the testimony of one credible and positive witness is sufficient to convict, and in this case, Ompad, Jr. was positively identified by two witnesses. On the accused-appellant's flight: The Court agreed with the accused-appellant that his act of hiding could not be considered an indication of guilt. As an admitted member of the NPA, it was natural for him to be in constant hiding, thus the elemental principle that flight is evidence of guilt did not apply in this case. On the positive identification and denial: The Court gave great weight and credence to the clear and positive identification of the accused-appellant by his former comrades as the assailant of Dionilo Barlaan. The denial of the accused-appellant that it was not he but his companion Alex who shot Dionilo was considered a weak defense, especially in the face of positive identification, citing People v. Aguarino and People v. Estrella. On the motive and other conclusions: The Court dismissed the alleged motive of witness Lamoste being mad at appellant for buying rice elsewhere as too trivial. The conclusion of the lower court that the accused-appellant's failure to seek refuge under a writ of habeas corpus was an indication of guilt was also found to be too mindless to merit attention.
Main Doctrine
While delay in reporting an incident may cast doubt on the credibility of a witness, such delay is excusable if sufficiently explained, particularly when motivated by fear of reprisal. Flight, in the context of membership in an armed group, may not be considered evidence of guilt.