People v. Andres
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 20, 1994, at around 9:50 p.m., prison guard Domingo Astrande was allegedly stabbed and killed by prisoners Rogelio Andres, Antonio Sumilata, Bernardo Largo, Roberto Tugado, Rufo Advincula, Raymun Rios, and Jimmy Laurente at the Sablayan Prison and Penal Farm. The prosecution alleged that the accused, armed with sharp bladed instruments, conspired and confederated to attack Astrande with treachery and evident premeditation, inflicting serious wounds that caused his death. Procedural History: An amended Information for murder was filed on December 9, 1994. Appellants Rogelio Andres, Antonio Sumilata, Bernardo Largo, and Roberto Tugado, along with Rufo Advincula, pleaded not guilty. Jimmy Laurente and Raymun Rios remained at large. The Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, in a Decision dated July 4, 1995, acquitted Rufo Advincula and found Rogelio Andres, Antonio Sumilata, Bernardo Largo, and Roberto Tugado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua to death and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. The trial court also awarded P50,000.00 as indemnity and P70,000.00 for burial and wake expenses. The Petition: The convicted accused appealed the decision of the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and disregarding the evidence for the defense. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. Whether the trial court erred in not giving due course to the fact that the appellants did not run away despite the opportunity to do so, especially if there was conspiracy; and whether the trial court erred in not giving credence to the testimony of Appellant Antonio Sumilata and the defense testimony of Winston Gonzales. Whether the trial court erred in not giving credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Nicomedes Tabar and Ante Fernando. Whether the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused Antonio Sumilata beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the crime committed was murder or homicide. On the penalty and damages.
Ruling
The appeal is denied. The assailed Decision is affirmed with the modification that the appellants Rogelio Andres, Bernardo Largo, Roberto Tugado, and Antonio Sumilata are sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The award of actual damages is reduced to P32,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of witnesses and sufficiency of evidence: The Court reiterated its consistent ruling that the factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court's findings in this case. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses were deemed minor and did not destroy their credibility. The Court emphasized that apparent conflicts in testimonies of eyewitnesses regarding details like time and place are natural and do not necessarily imply falsehood. Furthermore, the Court held that an affidavit taken ex parte is almost incomplete and often inaccurate, thus, discrepancies between sworn statements and testimonies during trial do not necessarily denigrate a witness's credibility. The positive identification of the appellants by Danilo de la Cruz, who testified that he saw Antonio Sumilata striking and stabbing prison guard Domingo Astrande, and that Rogelio Andres, Bernardo Largo, and Robert Tugado were with him, was given significant weight. The Court noted that Dela Cruz could recognize the assailants due to the bright light from the television. The Court also found that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses placed the appellants at the scene of the crime and indicated their active participation, not just passive observation. The Court concluded that the prosecution had proven the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On whether the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the crime committed was murder, not homicide, because treachery qualified the killing. The essence of treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation. The evidence showed that Domingo Astrande was attacked suddenly while watching television, and the appellants continued their assault even when he was pleading for his life. The multiple stab wounds (twenty-seven in all) confirmed by the medical examiner further supported the finding of treachery and the involvement of multiple assailants. The Court noted that abuse of superior strength, while present, was not alleged in the Information and was deemed absorbed by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. On the evidence against Antonio Sumilata and conspiracy: The Court found Sumilata's contentions unconvincing. While Ante Fernando testified that he saw Laurente and Rios running away from the crime scene, and Nicomedes Tabar stated he saw Sumilata holding a knife but did not see him stab the victim, Danilo de la Cruz positively identified Sumilata as one of the assailants. The Court held that an affirmative testimony from a credible witness is stronger than a negative one. Sumilata's denial and alibi were deemed unavailing in light of his positive identification by Dela Cruz. The Court also noted that Sumilata was only about ten arms' length from the locus criminis, making his presence at the scene not physically impossible. The Court dismissed Sumilata's claims of maltreatment during custodial investigation, stating that his conviction was not based on any illegally obtained confession or admission, and such allegations are only material when a confession is the basis of conviction. The Court also rejected Sumilata's arguments regarding non-flight, lack of motive, and potential coercion of prisoner witnesses, reiterating that non-flight is not conclusive proof of innocence, motive is not an element of murder when there is positive identification, and unsubstantiated allegations of coercion do not justify modifying the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility. The Court found that conspiracy existed in the killing of Astrande, as evidenced by the manner the appellants attacked him and the numerous wounds he sustained, indicating a plurality of assailants acting in concert. The Court defined conspiracy as an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and the decision to commit it, which can be inferred from the accused's acts pointing to a common purpose, concert of action, and community of interest. On the evidence against Antonio Sumilata: The Court found Sumilata's contentions unconvincing. While Ante Fernando testified that he saw Laurente and Rios running away from the crime scene, and Nicomedes Tabar stated he saw Sumilata holding a knife but did not see him stab the victim, Danilo de la Cruz positively identified Sumilata as one of the assailants. The Court held that an affirmative testimony from a credible witness is stronger than a negative one. Sumilata's denial and alibi were deemed unavailing in light of his positive identification by Dela Cruz. The Court also noted that Sumilata was only about ten arms' length from the locus criminis, making his presence at the scene not physically impossible. On the evidence against Antonio Sumilata: The Court found Sumilata's contentions unconvincing. The Court dismissed Sumilata's claims of maltreatment during custodial investigation, stating that his conviction was not based on any illegally obtained confession or admission, and such allegations are only material when a confession is the basis of conviction. The Court also rejected Sumilata's arguments regarding non-flight, lack of motive, and potential coercion of prisoner witnesses, reiterating that non-flight is not conclusive proof of innocence, motive is not an element of murder when there is positive identification, and unsubstantiated allegations of coercion do not justify modifying the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility. On the crime committed (Murder vs. Homicide): The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the crime committed was murder, not homicide, because treachery qualified the killing. The essence of treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation. On the penalty and damages: The Court modified the trial court's sentence by imposing reclusion perpetua as the penalty for murder, as the killing was qualified by treachery but not attended by any other aggravating circumstances. The award of P70,000.00 as actual damages was reduced to P32,000.00, as only documented receipts totaling that amount were presented.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterates that factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great respect; positive identification prevails over denial and alibi; the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction even in a charge for murder; and where the killing was qualified by treachery, the crime committed was murder, and the proper penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua.