Rivera v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Benjamin Rivera was charged with murder for allegedly shooting Renato U. Camacho with a handgun, qualified by treachery. The incident occurred on January 18, 1989, between 7:00 and 8:00 PM, while Camacho was playing mahjong in a hovel. A gunshot was fired, hitting Camacho on the head, and he died instantaneously. Jenny Camacho, the victim's wife, testified that she saw petitioner converse with her husband for about five minutes prior to the incident. Later, from about fifteen meters away, she saw petitioner at the window of his mother's house aiming a short gun at the mahjong players, and then the gun went off. Rosario Olipas, another mahjong player, testified that an argument ensued between Camacho and petitioner regarding a stolen goat, after which petitioner went inside a house and drank beer. She then heard a gunshot and saw the victim slump on the mahjong table. Lourdes Camacho, the victim's mother, testified that petitioner suspected her son of stealing his goat and that petitioner had previously fired a gun near her house. Dr. Perfecto Tabangin's autopsy report indicated a gunshot wound at the right occipital region, penetrating the skull and shattering brain tissue. Petitioner interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was in his field preparing for planting and later watching over his sick daughter. Procedural History: The trial court found petitioner guilty of murder, appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and sentenced him to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal maximum, as maximum. He was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of Camacho. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The Petition: Petitioner assailed the credibility of prosecution witnesses, citing alleged contradictions in their testimonies and the Solicitor General's recommendation for acquittal.
Issue(s)
Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible despite alleged inconsistencies. Whether the defense of alibi was sufficiently established. Whether the killing was qualified by treachery. Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was properly appreciated. Whether the penalty and civil indemnity awarded were proper.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's conviction of petitioner Benjamin Rivera for Murder qualified by treachery, mitigated by voluntary surrender, is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of prosecution witnesses: The Court reiterated the unbending jurisprudence that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. The Court found no evil motives attributed to the prosecution witnesses, and the detailed testimony of eyewitness Jenny Camacho was given greater weight and credibility against petitioner's mere alibi, especially since her testimony jibed with the autopsy findings. The Court also noted that inconsistencies in minor matters only serve to strengthen, rather than weaken, the credibility of witnesses as they erase suspicion of rehearsed testimonies. The explanation of the medico-legal officer regarding the trajectory of the bullet, even if the assailant was at a higher level, was accepted. Furthermore, the behavior of Jenny Camacho in running home and the delay in her statement were deemed not to impair her credibility, as witnesses react differently to startling occurrences and delay or vacillation in reporting does not necessarily render testimony unworthy. On the defense of alibi: The Court found the alibi of petitioner unpersuasive. The element of physical impossibility of his presence at the crime scene was not met, as the distance between his farm and the scene of the crime could be traversed in less than an hour, or even less than ten minutes. The Court reiterated that where the distance does not render it impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must yield to positive testimony and clear identification by prosecution witnesses. On the qualification of treachery: The Court ruled that the killing was qualified by treachery. The suddenness of the shooting without provocation, while the victim was innocently playing mahjong and unaware of the impending attack, demonstrated the treacherous nature of the assault. On the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender: The Court properly appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The records showed that petitioner voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court and posted bail before arrest. The Court cited jurisprudence holding that presenting oneself to post bail after the issuance of an arrest warrant constitutes voluntary surrender, and the law does not require the surrender to be prior to the order of arrest. On the penalty and civil indemnity: The Court affirmed the penalty imposed by the trial court, considering that the crime was committed prior to RA 7659. At the time, the penalty for murder was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. With one mitigating circumstance (voluntary surrender), the imposable penalty was in the minimum period, reclusion temporal in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum sentence was reclusion temporal in its maximum period, and the minimum was taken from the next lower penalty, prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium. The award of civil indemnity for death (P50,000.00), moral damages (P50,000.00), and actual damages (P9,770.00) was also affirmed as it was not objected to by the petitioner.
Main Doctrine
The findings of the trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. Inconsistencies in testimonies on minor matters strengthen credibility, and delay in reporting does not necessarily impair credibility.