People v. Zipagan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In criminal case No. 3087, Basilio Baccay and Bello Zipagan were accused of homicide for allegedly shooting and killing Luciano Tabingu with a shotgun. In criminal case No. 3089, they were charged with illegal possession of the same shotgun. The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired and confederated to shoot the victim, who died two days after the incident. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Isabela found Bello Zipagan guilty as principal and Basilio Baccay guilty as accomplice of homicide, sentencing Zipagan to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal and Baccay to six years and one day of prision mayor. Both were also found guilty of illegal possession of firearms and sentenced to one month of imprisonment each. Bello Zipagan appealed. The Petition: The appellant, Bello Zipagan, assigned as errors the trial court's reliance on the testimony of his co-accused Basilio Baccay, whom he claimed was the actual killer and had a conflicting sworn statement, and the court's failure to give credit to the defense's evidence, which he claimed was corroborated by the victim's father and brother.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving credit to the testimony of the co-accused Basilio Baccay. Whether the trial court erred in not giving credit to the evidence presented by the defense for the appellant Bello Zipagan. Whether the trial court erred in not acquitting the appellant Bello Zipagan.
Ruling
The decision of the Court of First Instance is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of the co-accused Basilio Baccay's testimony: The Court reiterated the rule that the evidence of accomplices is admissible and competent, though it comes from a "polluted source" and is scrutinized with care. It affirmed that even unsupported testimony of an accomplice can be sufficient to warrant a conviction if corroborated or found trustworthy. The Court found no reason to reject the trial judge's findings on credibility, which is a matter peculiarly within his province. The Court also noted that the conviction did not rest solely on Baccay's testimony and that the inconsistencies in the victim's father and brother's testimonies were likely due to tampering, as evidenced by attempts to influence testimony and the condition of the firearm. On the evidence presented by the defense: The Court found the appellant's contention that the shotgun was stolen by Basilio Baccay from Aniceto Miguel's house and that Bello Zipagan met him and refused to give up the gun to be unworthy of credit. The trial judge's findings of fact, based on a detailed analysis of contradictory evidence, clearly established that Bello Zipagan, in conspiracy with Basilio Baccay, used his father's shotgun to shoot the victim. The court found that the victim's father and brother, who initially testified for the prosecution, later recanted and attributed the shooting to Basilio Baccay, but the court deemed this recantation to be a result of tampering. On the acquittal of the appellant: The Court affirmed the conviction. However, it agreed with the lower court that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of not having intended to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. The Court reasoned that the appellant was hunting for birds with small shot, fired at the deceased boy who was running at a distance of 40 meters, and that the preceding events involved a dispute over sugar cane. Under these circumstances, the Court concluded that it was not the appellant's intention to kill the deceased boy.
Main Doctrine
The testimony of an accomplice, while coming from a polluted source and subject to grave suspicion, is admissible and competent, and may be sufficient to warrant a conviction even if uncorroborated, provided it is scrutinized with care and found to be trustworthy. The credibility of witnesses is a matter peculiarly within the province of the trial judge.