Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=51712:gr-177564-2008&amp;catid=1510&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:42:15+00:00

Document:
ARTURO REVITA "ALIAS" ARTHUR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision 1 dated 15 February 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 29903 which affirmed in toto the Decision 2 dated 7 November 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Rosales, Pangasinan, Branch 53, finding petitioner Arturo O. Revita (Arturo) guilty of the crime of homicide.
During the arraignment on 25 September 2002, Arturo, with the assistance of counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty.4 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented two witnesses: (1) Bryan Caguiao (Bryan), 19-year old grandson of the late victim, Flordeliza Caguioa (Flordeliza), who allegedly saw the actual killing of the latter; and (2) Dr. Monina M. Madriaga (Dr. Madriaga), the Municipal Health Officer of Balungao, Pangasinan, who conducted the autopsy of the corpse of the victim.
As documentary evidence, the prosecution offered the following: (1) Exhibit "A" - Autopsy Report issued by Dr. Madriaga; (2) Exhibit "B" - Death Certificate of Flordeliza; (3) Exhibit "C" - Sworn Statement of Bryan dated 24 July 2002; and (4) Exhibit "D" - Certificate issued by the Firearms and Explosives Division of the Philippine National Police, Camp Crame certifying that Arturo is not a licensed firearm holder.
On opening the chest cavity, the heart and the (R) lung were lacerated with multiple blood and blood clots inside.
The defense, on the other hand, advanced the theory of denial and alibi. To buttress its claim, the defense presented Arturo and the following witnesses: (1) Rolando de la PeÃ±a (Rolando), Arturo's brother-in-law, who was allegedly with Arturo when the incident took place; (2) Teodoro Olivares (Teodoro), Arturo's nephew, who also claimed he was with Arturo during the night in question; (3) Lemie Revita (Lemie), Arturo's wife; (4) Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Emelda Besarra Roderos, Forensic Chemist of the Pangasinan Provincial Laboratory, who conducted a paraffin test on Arturo; (5) Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Gervacio Villanos, the investigator of the killing incident; and (6) Police Officer 3 (PO3) Ben Perez Bince, the responding police officer.
Arturo denied the accusation against him. He claimed that when the killing of Flordeliza occurred on 23 July 2002, he was in the house of his sister situated in Sitio Bantog, Barangay Rajal, Balungao, Pangasinan, enjoying a drinking spree while waiting for the arrival of his sister from Spain.14 He alleged he was with the company of his brothers, sister, wife, children and some friends. After getting drunk, he went to sleep only to be awakened by his wife at around 8:30 to 9:00 p.m. as police officers were looking for him.15 The same police officers brought him to the municipal jail and detained him. The following morning, he was brought to Urdaneta City where he was subjected to a paraffin test. The test yielded a negative result since there was no gunpowder residue found in his hands.
Witnesses Lemie, Teodoro and Rolando corroborated Arturo's testimony that he was in his sister's house and that they were there the whole time when the incident was supposed to have happened. Lemie further testified that as the finance officer of the Barangay Power Association, she personally knew, through the billing statement, that there was no electricity in the house of the victim during the fateful night.
In a decision dated 7 November 2005, the RTC found Arturo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge pressed against him.
Arturo assails the RTC and the Court of Appeal's findings which gave weight and credence to the testimony of witness Bryan. Arturo finds incredible the testimony of Bryan who recounts that he saw the suspect pass by him while displaying his rifle. Arturo opines that it would run counter to human experience that a felon would exhibit his attack weapon before any possible witnesses to his criminal act. He said that criminals would normally hide any crime instrument to avoid being suspected. Arturo is likewise skeptical of Bryan's behavior during the incident. He stresses that if indeed Bryan witnessed what he declared in the witness stand, he would have attempted to prevent the perpetrator from killing his grandmother. Since Bryan did not even try to dissuade the malefactor from carrying out his plan, his testimony is suspect.
At bottom, the question in this case is the credibility of the parties and their witnesses.
A: When I was talking with my cousin Manilyn Rangel, uncle Arthur Revita arrived. I asked him where he was going but he did not answer me, sir.
A: When he saw my grandmother, he went near to her and shot her, sir.
A: She was coming out from inside her house, sir.
A: She proceeded at the terrace, sir.
A: 4 to 5 meters away, sir.
A: He was near my grandmother, sir, about 2' meters.
A: He used baby armalite, sir.
Bryan vividly saw the incident as it was unfolding because it happened right under his nose. He could not have missed it because the victim and the assailant were just close by. Bryan unmistakably identified Arturo as the assailant because right before the latter fired at the victim, the former was able to see at close range the assailant. In fact, Bryan attempted to talk to the assailant when the two bumped into each other. Also, Bryan observed the angry disposition of Arturo immediately before the shooting spree. Considering these facts, even assuming that the crime scene was not lighted, Bryan could still clearly recognize the assailant since the former knew the latter, and the proximity of the two, which was just a few meters away.
This Court pored over the records of the case and found that Bryan's candid and straightforward narration of the brutal act perpetrated by Arturo on the night of the incident indubitably deserves credence. It is unbelievable that a 19-year old young barrio boy would concoct a tale surrounding the atrocious killing of his grandmother, and would impute so grave a crime to someone he respected, had it not actually taken place. The defense cannot even come up with a decent imputation that Bryan was impelled by ill motive when he pointed at Arturo as the author of the carnage. This is so because there is no plausible reason why Bryan should testify against Arturo, if the latter has nothing to do with what had happened. This Court has consistently held that where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness should testify falsely against the accused or implicate him in a serious offense, the testimony deserves faith and credit.24 Indeed, as a relative of the victim, Bryan's purpose would be to ensure that the real culprit is punished rather than put the blame on someone who is innocent of the crime.25 So, also, the Court has repeatedly said that the testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive and satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient to convict.26 In the instant case, Bryan gave a clear and convincing narration of the crime, identifying Arturo as responsible thereof. His lone testimony as an eyewitness, therefore, is sufficient to support a conviction.
Arturo is clutching at straws in making an issue out of Bryan's inaction to stop the killing of his grandmother, or at least to help her after she was shot by the assailant. There is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling, frightful or traumatic experience - some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into insensibility.34 Different people act differently to a given stimulus or type of situation.35 Bryan's flight from the scene is understandable considering that the harrowing sight he just witnessed was beyond his young mind to take. It is also natural for him to scurry away from the place to avoid incurring the wrath of the assailant. Moreover, Bryan failed to prevent Arturo from killing his grandmother simply because he did not expect that the latter would shoot the victim. Also, Arturo, who was armed with a high-powered rifle, would be too enormous a force to be stalled by the young fellow.
Arturo claims that Bryan's testimony is unrealistic since it is not in accord with human experience to kill someone in the presence of prying eyes and that at the very least the weapon used should be concealed from the witnesses. This argument is unavailing. This Court observed that there is no standard behavior of criminals before, during, and after the commission of a crime.36 Some may be so bold and daring at the point of recklessness in committing a crime in broad daylight in full view of bystanders, would-be witnesses and even before the very eyes of the victim's relatives.37 Others may be so cunning such that they commit crime in the darkness of the night to avoid detection and arrest by peace officers.38 In the case under consideration, it is not remote that Arturo - who was intoxicated - may have been emboldened by his condition to the point of displaying his weapon to the relatives of the victim and executed the victim in the presence of the victim's relatives.
In fine, this Court defers to the findings of the trial court which are affirmed by the Court of Appeals, there being no cogent reason to veer away from such findings.
Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the applicable penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance alleged and proven in the case at bar, the penalty should be applied in its medium period pursuant to Article 64(1) of the Revised Penal Code, which ranges from a minimum of 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to a maximum of 17 years and 4 months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty shall be within the range of prision mayor in any of its periods as minimum to reclusion temporal in its medium period as the maximum. The range of prision mayor is from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years, while reclusion temporal in its medium period, ranges from 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months. The RTC imposed on Arturo the indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the RTC is in order.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 15 February 2007 which affirmed the 7 November 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Rosales, Pangasinan, Branch 53, finding Arturo O. Revita GUILTY of the crime of Homicide, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
** Justices Dante O. Tinga and Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. were designated to sit as additional members replacing Justices Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura and Ruben T. Reyes per Raffle dated 19 November 2007.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes (now Associate Justice of this Court) and Arcangelita Romilla Lontok, concurring; rollo, pp. 95-103.
2 Penned by Judge Teodorico Alfonso P. Bauzon.
5 TSN, 26 February 2003, pp. 119-120.
9 TSN, 12 March 2003, pp. 7-13.
12 Exhibit "A"; records, p. 6.
14 TSN, 6 January 2004, pp. 8-9.
15 Id. at 5, 10.
16 TSN, 16 August 2004, p. 5.
17 TSN, 5 October 2004, pp. 5-6.
18 TSN, 23 May 2005, pp. 6-8.
21 People v. Matito, 468 Phil. 14, 24 (2004).
22 People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 118912, 28 May 2004, 430 SCRA 40, 50.
23 TSN, 26 February 2003, pp. 4-7.
24 People v. Continente, 393 Phil. 367, 400 (2000).
25 People v. Carillo, 388 Phil. 1010, 1023 (2000).
26 People v. Camacho, 411 Phil. 715, 727 (2001).
27 People v. Morales, 311 Phil. 279, 288 (1995).
28 People v. Appegu, 429 Phil. 467, 481 (2002).
30 TSN, 2 February, pp. 6-7.
31 TSN, 26 August 2003, p. 11.
32 TSN, 23 February 2004, p. 6.
33 People v. Sumalinog, Jr., 466 Phil. 637, 651 (2004).
34 People v. Castillo, supra note 22.
36 People v. Garcia, 447 Phil. 244, 260 (2003).
39 People v. Teehankee, Jr., G.R. NOS. 111206-08, 6 October 1995, 249 SCRA 54, 103.
40 Licyayo v. People, G.R. No. 169425, 4 March 2008, 547 SCRA 598, 614.

References: v. 
In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.