People v. Herbieto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 2, 1988, at approximately 3:00 AM, Timoteo Noya and Corsino Durano, who were sleeping in the house of spouses Leticio Herbieto and Lilia Herbieto, were awakened by a shout. Leticio Herbieto recognized the caller as Cesar Herbieto and his companions. Leticio went downstairs, followed by Lilia carrying a lamp. Lilia witnessed Cesar Herbieto pull Leticio out and turn him over to Maximo Pacquiao. Six armed men were present. A gunshot was heard, and Timoteo and Corsino hid. Lilia heard her husband moan. Cesar Herbieto ordered his men to kill Timoteo and Corsino. Timoteo and Corsino volunteered to come out of hiding. Maximo Pacquiao pointed a gun at Corsino Durano, and Masser Maraño inquired about their firearms. Leticio told them to run for their lives as Cesar Herbieto and his boys intended to kill them. Timoteo and Corsino ran, but Leticio, wounded in the thigh, could not. Corsino sustained a gunshot wound in the back, and Timoteo sustained a gunshot wound on his right foot. Leticio suffered two gunshot wounds and four stab wounds, resulting in his death. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 28, Mandaue City, found appellants Cesar Herbieto, Masser Maraño, and Maximo Pacquiao guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the murder of Leticio Herbieto and for two counts of attempted murder on Timoteo Noya and Corsino Durano. They were sentenced to indeterminate penalties and ordered to indemnify the heirs of Leticio Herbieto. All accused were credited with full time of preventive imprisonment. The Petition: Appellants appealed the decision, claiming the trial court erred in convicting them due to insufficient proof, not giving credence to their testimonies and those of their witnesses, convicting Masser Maraño without positive identification, and promulgating judgment in defiance of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the trial court erred in not giving credence to the testimonies of the appellants and their witnesses. Whether appellant Masser Maraño was positively identified as one of the assailants. Whether the judgment was promulgated in defiance of the Rules of Court. Whether treachery was present as a qualifying circumstance in the murder of Leticio Herbieto. Whether abuse of superior strength was present as a qualifying circumstance in the murder and attempted murders. Whether the penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. DU-1281 was correct. Whether the indemnity awarded was correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Cesar Herbieto, Masser Maraño, and Maximo Pacquiao for murder and attempted murder, with modifications to the penalty and indemnity. Appellants Cesar Herbieto, Maximo Pacquiao, and Masser Maraño were each sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. DU-1281, and the indemnity awarded for the death of Leticio Herbieto was increased to P50,000.00. The assailed joint decision was affirmed in all other respects.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of proof beyond reasonable doubt and credibility of witnesses: The Court found that the appellants' guilt was duly established. The defense of alibi and denial was deemed unworthy of credit. The Court reiterated that fear for one's life is a valid explanation for a witness' delay in identifying the malefactors, and such delay does not necessarily impair credibility. The trial court's observation of the witnesses' demeanor was given credence, as appellate courts generally defer to such appraisals. The Court emphasized that friendship or relationship is not a deterrent to the commission of a crime. The positive identification by Lilia Herbieto and Corsino Durano, despite the initial claim of masked assailants due to fear, was deemed sufficient. Timoteo Noya also provided identification of the appellants, citing the moonlight and proximity as factors enabling recognition. On the positive identification of appellant Masser Maraño: The Court found that Corsino Durano vividly recounted Masser Maraño's participation by inquiring about their arms. Timoteo Noya also testified to seeing the faces of Maximo Pacquiao and Masser Maraño clearly. Therefore, the claim of absence of positive identification was rejected. On the alleged promulgation of judgment in defiance of the Rules of Court: The Court found no marked disparity in the language used in the decision that would indicate it was not personally prepared by the trial judge. Even if a disparity existed, it would not ipso facto prove the decision was not the judge's own, as judges are at liberty to employ different styles. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty was upheld. On the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the murder of Leticio Herbieto: The Court ruled that treachery could not be appreciated because the prosecution failed to definitively establish the manner in which the initial assault or the fatal blows were inflicted on Leticio. The Court noted that the victims had been forewarned of the attack, negating treachery in the attempted murder cases as well. On the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength: The Court found that abuse of superior strength was present in the murder of Leticio Herbieto and the attempted murders of Timoteo Noya and Corsino Durano. The presence of six armed men against unarmed victims constituted a notorious inequality of forces, which was clearly taken advantage of by the appellants and their companions. This circumstance qualified the crime to murder and attempted murder, respectively. On the imposable penalties: For the murder of Leticio Herbieto, the Court held that in the absence of ordinary aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty should be the medium period of reclusion temporal maximum to death, which is reclusion perpetua. The Court corrected the trial court's application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law to an indivisible penalty like reclusion perpetua. For the attempted murder cases, the penalties imposed were found to be in order with the rightful application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. On the indemnity: The Court increased the indemnity awarded for the death of Leticio Herbieto to P50,000.00 in accordance with existing jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
Fear for one's life is a valid explanation for a witness' failure to immediately notify the authorities of what transpired when the crime was committed, and such delay does not necessarily impair the credibility of the witness. Minor inconsistencies in a witness' testimony do not impair credibility, especially when discrepancies exist between an extrajudicial statement and testimony given in court, with the latter deserving more faith and credit.