Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=33867:g-r-no-104596-november-23,-1993-people-of-the-phil-v-rogelio-espinoza,-et-al&amp;catid=1308&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:07:10+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROGELIO ESPINOZA Y ALI, VICTOR ESPINOZA Y ALI and JULIAN MAGBARIL Y OMBRADOR, Accused-Appellants.
The Solicitor General for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Abundio L. Okit for Accused-Appellants.
1.	REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY; IDENTIFICATION MADE BY WITNESS AS TO THE IDENTITY OF ASSAILANTS, NORMALLY ACCEPTED WHERE WITNESS DOES NOT APPEAR BIASED. — In People v. Jacolo, Et Al., we held: Where conditions of visibility are favorable, and the witness does not appear to be biased, his assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should normally be accepted. This is particularly true, in this case, where the defense failed to impute any improper motive on the part of Lucresio for testifying against the appellants.
2.	ID.; ID.; ID.; TESTIMONY OF WITNESS DESCRIBING DETAILS OF THE CRIME DESERVES CREDENCE. — The testimony of a witness, mentioning the minutiae of an incident that could not easily be concocted, such as the murder in case at bar, deserves credence for it indicates sincerity and truthfulness in the narration of events.
3.	ID.; ID.; ID.; POSITIVE TESTIMONY OF CREDIBLE WITNESS, SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT. — The credible testimony of a lone witness can provide a rational basis for conviction. The fight for truth is not necessarily won by the party with the more numerous witnesses. It is the quality and not the quantity of witnesses that counts in assessing their credence.
4.	ID.; ID.; ID.; INITIAL HESITATION OF WITNESSES TO REPORT THE CRIME, OF JUDICIAL NOTICE AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AGAINST THEM. — We take judicial notice of the fact that people usually shy away from any involvement in criminal cases due to its inconvenience, if not the danger that it poses to their lives. The fact, therefore, that it takes them a long time to decide whether or not to testify should not necessarily erode their credibility. In this case, Lucresio had just witnessed a gruesome, hacking incident. There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted with a shocking incident. Lucresio’s initial hesitation to report the crime to the authorities due to the shocking experience should not be counted against his credibility.
5.	ID.; ID.; PART OF THE RES GESTAE; IDENTIFICATION MADE BY THE VICTIM OF HIS ASSAILANTS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ASSAULT, CONSIDERED AS SUCH. — Appellants’ participation in the merciless killing of Renato Salvar is further buttressed by the fact that before the victim died, he disclosed to witnesses CHARLITO GUALDERAMA AND SIMPLICIO SALVAR, JR. the name of his assailants (TSN, April 10, 1989, pp. 21-22; TSN, January 16, 1990, p. 32). Utterances made immediately after a startling occurrence and before the declarant had an opportunity to fabricate a false statement can be considered as part of the res gestae pursuant to Section 42 of the Revised Rules of Evidence.
6.	ID.; ID.; CREDIBILITY; NOT AFFECTED BY MERE RELATIONSHIP. — Accused-appellants would like us to disbelieve the testimonies of Charlito and Simplicio, Jr. on the ground that they are relatives of the victim. This is a trite argument. We have ruled that relationship of the witnesses to the victim per se does not affect their credibility.
7.	ID.; ID.; ID.; ALIBI; UNAVAILING IN THE FACE OF POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION. — Accused-appellants’ defense consists of alibi. It is established that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by an eyewitness who had no improper motive to falsely testify.
8.	ID.; ID.; ID.; FINDINGS OF FACTS OF THE TRIAL COURT, GENERALLY ACCORDED FULL CREDIT ON APPEAL. — Finally, as between the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses and the negative statements of the appellants, the former deserve more credence and weight than the latter. In this case, we give full credit to the factual findings of the trial court considering that it is in the best position to weigh conflicting declarations of witnesses as it was able to observe their demeanor and conduct while giving their testimonies.
9.	CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; PENALTY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MITIGATING OR AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE. — The penalty for Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. The ruling case law is that in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the proper penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua (the medium period of the penalty).
10.	CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; CIVIL INDEMNITY FOR DEATH RAISED TO P50,000.00. — Also, in conformity with the prevailing decisions of this Court, the proper indemnity for the heirs of the deceased should be fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00).
"On August 30, 1988, at around 7:00 o’clock in the evening, prosecution witness Lucresio Croda was in the living room of his house near the crossing of Kisawi and Anlawagan, Barangay Payad, Pangatucan (sic), Bukidnon, when he heard cries for help. As he went down the stairs, he saw the appellants drag the victim away from the road towards his house. At a distance of approximately three fathoms from his house, he positively recognized the victim as Renato Salvar. He also witnessed the accused-appellant Rogelio and Victor Espinoza hack the victim several times with their long bolos while appellant Magbaril (sic) held back the victim who was lying on his back. Overcome with fear, he rushed back to his house. He then assisted his wife who was in near-faint (sic) after witnessing the incident (tsn, April 10, 1989, pp. 4-7, 12-12 [sic]).
"Q	When you saw him on that condition what did you do?
"Q	When you asked him what was your position in relation to Renato Salvar who was lying on the ground?
"A	I went near him and asked him who was responsible for his condition and he answered.
"Q	What was his answer?
"A ‘They betrayed me’ (unay).
"Q	I want to quote to the Court what actually Renato Salvar said when you asked him what happened to him?
"A	He said, "I was betrayed by Rogelio Espinosa (sic), Victor Espinosa (sic) and Julian Magbaril (guiunay)." (tsn, April 10, 1989, pp. 21-22).
"Q	Seeing your brother lying on the ground with some wounds what did you do?
"A	I asked him a question.
"Q.	What actually did you ask him?
"A	I asked him who was responsible for his several wounds?
"Q	And did your brother Renato Salvar answer the question?"
"A.	That he was waylaid.
"Q	And who waylaid him, do you know?
"There is no basis for that question.
"We will reform the question, Your Honor.
"Q	What else did your brother tell you, if any, as to who was responsible on his injuries?
"A	That the persons responsible were Rogelio Espinosa (sic), Victor Espinosa (sic) and Julian Magbaril." (Ibid., tsn, p. 32).
"On the other hand, all three accused interposed the defense of alibi.
"Victor Espinoza and his brother Rogelio Espinoza alleged that they were both in the house of Julian Magbaril earlier in the evening where they took their supper at approximately 7:30 in the evening. At around 8:30 same evening, both left to return to their respective houses.
Simplicio Salvar, Jr., together with his father and other companions who arrived at the scene, boarded Renato Salvar in a truck to seek medical assistance in Don Carlos. Two hours later, while they were on their way to Don Carlos, Renato expired. Upon noticing that Renato had died, the group did not proceed to Don Carlos. Instead, they returned to their house in Payad, Pangantucan, Bukidnon. On September 1, 1988, Renato Salvar was buried.
"FIRST ERROR:	The Trial Court and the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to the testimony of the lone alleged eye-witness Lucresio Crudo (sic);.
We find no cogent reason to reverse the ruling of the appellate court.
The accused himself, Rogelio Espinoza, admitted on cross-examination that prosecution witnesses Lucresio Croda and Charlito Gualderama, both residents of Payad, Pagantucan, Bukidnon, are his friends and he could not think of any reason why they testified against him (TSN, June 26, 1990, pp. 59-60).
Q	When you heard Renato Salvar call for help what did you do?
A	I went downstairs and I met the person who was asking for help.
A	I saw Victor Espinos (sic), Julian Magbaril and Boy Espinosa (sic).
Q	When you said Boy Espinosa (sic) you are referring to Rogelio Espinosa (sic)?
Q	When you saw them when you went down from your house how far were they?
A	Three fathoms, more or less.
Q	What did the three accused do when you saw them?
Q	Who were they hacking?
Q	What did Rogelio Salvar use to hack Renato Salvar?
Q	What did Victor Espinosa use to hack Renato Salvar?
A:	Also a long bolo.
Q	How about Julian Magbaril what did he use?
A	He was not using any weapon he was just holding.
Q	Who was he holding?
A	Lying on his back.
Q	How about when Victor Espinosa (sic) hacked Renato Salvar what was the position of Renato Salvar?
A	I was not able to see his position because he was blocked by the grasses what I knew is he was already on the ground lying.
In an attempt to discredit Lucresio as a witness, Accused-appellants assert that he did not volunteer as a witness immediately after the crime was discovered that same fateful evening. 8 According to Lucresio, after witnessing the incident he rushed back to his house for fear of his life and opted to attend to his wife who had just given birth.
Q	How long was this bolo?
Witness indicating a length of two feet.
A	Also a long bolo.
Q	How long was that bolo you demonstrate?
A	Just the same length.
"That on or about the 30th day of August, 1988, in the evening, at crossing Anlawagan and Kisawi, barangay Payad, municipality of Pangantucan, province of Bukidnon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill by means of treachery and taking advantage of their bladed weapons (bolos), did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally attack, assault, hack and stab Renato Salvar, inflicting upon his person mortal wounds, which caused his death thereafter, to the damage and prejudice of the legal heirs of Renato Salvar in such amount as may be allowed by law.
3.	The sentence modified the Decision of the trial court which imposed the penalty of 12 years of prision mayor to 18 years of reclusion temporal and payment of indemnity of P30,000.00.
4.	Fathom implies a measuring in fathoms (units of six feet); see Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms, 1978 ed, p. 327.
5.	G.R. No. 94470, December 16, 1992, 216 SCRA 631; People v. Bernat, G.R. No. 55176, February 28, 1983 120 SCRA 918.
6.	People v. Wenceslao, G.R. No. 95583, August 12, 1992, 212 SCRA 560.
7.	People v. Bañez, G.R. No. 95456, September 18, 1992, 214 SCRA 109.
8.	Appellant’s Brief, p. 15.
9.	People v. Danico, G.R. No. 95554, May 7, 1992, 208 SCRA 472.
10.	People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 88752, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA 66.
Part of the res gestae. — Statement made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae (30a).
12.	People v. Pajarit, G.R. No. 82770, October 19, 1992, 214 SCRA 678.
13.	People v. Claudio, G.R. No. 100880, December 16, 1992, 216 SCRA 647.
14.	People v. Camahalan, G.R. No. 73535, December 18, 1992, 216 SCRA 687; People v. Pomentel, G.R. No. 87781, December 11, 1992, 216 SCRA 375;.
15.	People v. Arcega, G.R. No. 96319, March 31, 1992, 207 SCRA 681.
16.	People v. Moreno, Jr., G.R. No. 97408-09, September 2, 1992, 213 SCRA 450.
17.	People v. De La Cruz, G.R. No. 100386, December 11, 1992, 216 SCRA 476. People v. Pletado, G.R. No. 98432, July 1, 1992, 210 SCRA 634; People v. Sabornido, G.R. No. 102141, September 18, 1992; Muñoz, Et. Al. v. People, G.R. Nos. L-38968-70, February 9, 1989, 170 SCRA 107.
18.	People v. Serdan, G.R. No. 87318, September 2, 1992; People v. Pletado, G.R. No. 98432, July 1, 1992, 210 SCRA 634.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.