People v. Gonzales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 20, 1994, at approximately 10:00 p.m., in Sitio Mahawak, Barangay Damolog, Municipality of Sogod, Province of Cebu, three children, Yolen Hortezano (16 years old), Josel Hortezano (9 years old), and Aileen Hortezano (5 years old), were allegedly killed by the accused-appellant, Roberto Gonzales y Mendoza, alias "Bobbit." The Information charged the accused with Multiple Murder, alleging that the killings were committed with deliberate intent to kill, treachery, and evident premeditation, while the victims were asleep, using an 8-inch kitchen knife. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Danao City, Branch 25, found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death. The accused was also ordered to indemnify the private complainants. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed the decision of the trial court, raising several assignments of error concerning the credibility of witnesses, the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the voluntariness of his extrajudicial confession, and the award of damages.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in according weight and credence to the testimony of eyewitness Mary Iris Hortezano and PO3 Elvis Arche despite alleged lack of credibility. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Whether the trial court erred in according weight and credence to the extrajudicial confession of the accused-appellant notwithstanding his claim that it was involuntarily executed. Whether the trial court erred in awarding moral damages and attorney's fees.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial court. It found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of Murder and sentenced him to suffer three (3) sentences of reclusion perpetua. The Court affirmed the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of eyewitness Mary Iris Hortezano and PO3 Elvis Arche: The Court held that the age of the eyewitness (7 years old at the time of the incident, 8 years old at the time of testimony) does not disqualify her from being a witness. The requirements for a child witness's competence are the capacity of observation, recollection, and communication. The Court noted that Section 10 of Rule 132 allows leading questions when dealing with a child of tender years. Minor lapses in memory are expected from traumatic experiences, and minor inconsistencies do not discredit but may even strengthen a witness's testimony by negating the suspicion of rehearsal. The illumination from a kerosene lamp was deemed sufficient for identification, and the witness had known the accused as a neighbor. The Court reiterated the doctrine that the testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to support a conviction, even for murder. The Court found that the testimony of PO3 Elvis Arche provided circumstantial evidence that corroborated the eyewitness account. This included the presence of bloody footprints leading to the accused's house, scratches on the accused's body, and the discovery of a recently washed knife in the accused's house. The Court emphasized that there was no ill motive attributed to PO3 Arche, thus his testimony was entitled to full faith and credit. The Court reiterated that the testimony of a single credible eyewitness is sufficient for conviction, rendering the circumstantial evidence corroborative rather than the sole basis. On the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence: The Court found that the testimony of PO3 Elvis Arche provided circumstantial evidence that corroborated the eyewitness account. This included the presence of bloody footprints leading to the accused's house, scratches on the accused's body, and the discovery of a recently washed knife in the accused's house. The Court emphasized that there was no ill motive attributed to PO3 Arche, thus his testimony was entitled to full faith and credit. The Court reiterated that the testimony of a single credible eyewitness is sufficient for conviction, rendering the circumstantial evidence corroborative rather than the sole basis. On the extrajudicial confession: The Court found the appellant's contention regarding the extrajudicial confession to be untenable. It noted that the accused admitted the killings, the use of a kitchen knife, wearing slippers, and being guided by an "enchanted spirit." The confession was signed in the presence of a lawyer and subscribed before the Municipal Mayor. The Court cited People vs. Suarez for the principle that a lawyer provided by investigators is deemed engaged if the accused does not object. Crucially, the Court stressed that the extrajudicial confession was not the basis of the conviction, as there was independent evidence, specifically the eyewitness testimony of Mary Iris Hortezano, that established the accused's guilt. On the award of damages: The Court affirmed the trial court's award of civil indemnity and moral damages. The civil indemnity of P50,000.00 each for the three victims, totaling P150,000.00, was in conformity with prevailing jurisprudence. The moral damages of P150,000.00 were deemed reasonable considering the grief and sorrow suffered by the parents due to the sudden loss of their three children. The award of attorney's fees was also found reasonable, as the parents were compelled to secure legal counsel.
Main Doctrine
The testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to support a conviction, even in a charge for murder. Minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a child witness do not necessarily discredit the testimony, especially when the witness has known the accused prior to the incident and the illumination at the scene was sufficient for identification. Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by a prosecution witness, especially when the distance between the accused's residence and the crime scene is minimal.