G.R. No. 131924 - People vs. Cortez

Case Summary (G.R. No. 131924)

Information, Venue, and Statutory Provisions

On 21 August 1992, Assistant City Prosecutor Romualdo E. Galarrita filed an Information alleging that, at about midnight of that date in Zone 9, Macanhan, Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City, the accused conspired and mutually aided one another, with intent to kill, evident premeditation and treachery, and taking advantage of superior strength. The Information alleged that the accused, armed with a bladed weapon, attacked and stabbed Dominador Bislig, inflicting mortal wounds, contrary to Art. 248 in relation to Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code.

Factual Background: The Witness and the Assault

M/Sgt Estefanio C. Anobling testified that at ten o’clock in the evening of 20 August 1992, he was in his yard when he saw Carlito Cortez playing billiards with an unidentified person, while Gerry Espana stood about a meter away with another unidentified person. Anobling observed the group exchange glances and signals, which led him to decide to place them under surveillance. About forty-five minutes later, Dominador Bislig and his nephew Ismael Ledesma arrived at a nearby store. Ledesma ordered beer.

Upon seeing Bislig and Ledesma, the four accused entered the nearby house of Vicky, and Anobling continued to observe from about five meters away. According to Anobling, the accused “waiv(ed) their hands pointing to Bislig and his nephew.” Cortez then approached Bislig and Ledesma and conversed with them, with Espana joining intermittently. Apprehensive, Anobling went to the store. When he approached Bislig and Ledesma, the latter offered him a softdrink, which he accepted. Anobling asked them to leave due to the late hour, and Bislig promised to do so after finishing his beer; Anobling returned home.

Shortly after, Anobling overheard one of the accused ask Ledesma where he was going, and Ledesma replied that he was accompanying Bislig home. Anobling rushed out, taking a street parallel to where the accused were. He then saw Cortez and Espana about four meters away holding Bislig by his coat. Cortez stabbed Bislig with a knife while one of the “John Does” held a jungle bolo. When Anobling arrived, one assailant shouted “Si Master, si Master!” and all four accused fled. Anobling chased them, apprehended the person holding the bolo, and disarmed him, although the individual later escaped. Anobling brought Bislig to the hospital via a motorcab.

Anobling was informed by bystanders that the culprits had taken refuge in the house of Gilbert Cortez, Carlito’s brother. Together with Barangay Kagawad Lando Coro, he proceeded there and apprehended Cortez, who was pretending to be asleep, and Espana, who was standing in the yard.

Medical Evidence: Autopsy Findings and Weapon Possibility

Dr. Apolinar Vacalares, who autopsied the body of Bislig, testified that the victim sustained two stab wounds: one at the front anterior chest measuring 5.5 cm and another at the backside below the right scapula measuring 3 cm. The cause of death was “massive hemopneumothorax due to stab wound,” explained as a puncture in the lung that filled the thoracic cavity with blood. The doctor opined that the front wound was caused by a sharp knife with three edges and a rectangular shape, while the back wound was caused by a knife with three edges and rounded characteristics. Based on the nature and shape of the wounds, the doctor stated it was possible they were caused by two different weapons.

Defense Evidence: Alibi and Denials by Cortez and Espana

For the defense, Carlito Cortez testified that he was asleep in the house of his brother Gilbert on the night of the incident, about fifty meters from the crime scene. He claimed he spent the day taking care of Gilbert’s child and was only awakened by noise at midnight.

Gerry Espana stated that he arrived at Gilbert’s house at eleven o’clock that evening to fetch Carlito because they were going to do routine surveillance in a nearby barangay as barangay tanods.

Gilbert Cortez corroborated the defense by stating that he arrived home from work at about eight o’clock in the evening, had supper with his family and brother Carlito, and all slept. He claimed that at about eleven o’clock, Espana arrived to fetch Carlito. According to Gilbert, Anobling and Barangay Kagawad Lando Coro later arrived and arrested Carlito and Gerry; a minor altercation occurred, but the accused were persuaded to go to the police station.

Prosecution and Trial Court Conviction

Relying on Anobling’s testimony, the trial court convicted both Cortez and Espana of murder. It imposed a penalty of life imprisonment and ordered payment to the heirs of Bislig of P50,000.00 for indemnity and actual damages, and P100,000.00 for moral damages. The trial court found Anobling credible, noting that his account was straightforwad, categorical, spontaneous, frank, and consistent, and that he remained consistent on material points.

Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

In their brief, the accused-appellants attacked the credibility of Anobling. They argued that the witness was attempting to appear important by claiming he had been orally designated by Mayor Pablo P. Magtajas to keep peace and order in Barangay Macanhan. They further invoked alibi and denial, and sought to show inconsistencies in Anobling’s testimony, including claims that: (a) Anobling could not have caught up with the fleeing assailants because it was dark; (b) an assailant could not have escaped despite Anobling’s claimed karate “black belt” capability; (c) Anobling supposedly lied about his knowledge of Cortez because he mistakenly called him “Sander,” which was the nickname of Carlito’s brother Alexander; and (d) if Carlito was pretending to sleep in the room of Gilbert’s second-floor house, Espana should also have been pretending to sleep.

They also challenged the physical evidence by contending that the bolo presented in court was not the weapon used to stab Bislig, based on the pathologist’s testimony.

Appellate Court’s Assessment of Credibility and Identification

The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Anobling as credible. It emphasized that factual findings of trial courts, particularly on witness credibility and demeanor, deserve the highest respect on appeal due to the trial court’s opportunity to observe witnesses firsthand. The Court found it unlikely that Anobling could have narrated so many details—covering events even before the aggression began, the assailants’ identity and clothing, and the subsequent pursuit and capture—unless he was present.

The Court held that positive identification, where categorical and consistent and untainted by ill motive, prevails over alibi and denial. It further stated that for alibi to prosper, it must be shown both that the accused was elsewhere at the time of the offense and that it was physically impossible for them to be present at the scene or its immediate vicinity. Because Cortez and Espana’s claimed location in Gilbert’s house was only about fifty meters from the crime scene, the Court found that the defense did not rule out the possibility of presence at the locus criminis. It also found the alibi weak because it was mainly established by the accused themselves and close relatives.

On Gilbert’s corroboration, the Court found bias. It explained that blood relatives tend to protect one another and may give false testimony, especially when a relative is in danger of conviction. Hence, Gilbert’s testimony was accorded little weight relative to Anobling’s positive and unbiased narration.

Regarding the defense’s attacks as name-calling and ad hominem, the Court held that these arguments lacked support in the record and did not demonstrate any improper motive by Anobling. It also rejected the purported inconsistencies. The Court found it possible for Anobling, a runner only about four meters away, to overtake a fleeing assailant even in darkness given the short distance and the lighting conditions. It also found that Anobling testified he could clearly see the faces of the accused as the place was well lit and that he was able to identify the attacker wearing a yellow jacket.

On the mistaken nickname “Sander,” the Court accepted the Solicitor General’s point that the decisive fact was Anobling’s identification of the same person who stabbed Bislig. It also rejected the claim about the bolo’s relevance, holding that Anobling never intimated that the bolo wrested from the unidentified assailant was the instrument used to stab Bislig. Instead, Anobling testified that Cortez stabbed Bislig while the other held the jungle bolo, supporting the consistency of Anobling’s testimony with the pathologist’s findings.

Modification of Liability: Murder Not Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Although the Court agreed that Cortez and Espana were liable for Bislig’s death based on Anobling’s testimony, it held that the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and use of superior strength. It stressed that mere allegation is insufficient; the circumstances that qualify the killing as murder must be proved as indubitably as the killing itself, and the trial court did not adequately discuss the alleged qualifying circumstances.

As to treachery, the Court reiterated the statutory definition under Art. 14, par. 16 of the Revised Penal Code, requiring means and methods that tend directly and specifically to insure execution without risk from any defense the offended party might make. It found Anobling’s testimony sufficient to show that Cortez stabbed Bislig, but deficient as to the specific manner of stabbing showing swiftness, suddenness, or a deliberate manner that deprived the victim of opportunity to defend himself. The Court also found it unclear whether Espana’s act of holding Bislig was consciously employed to facilitate a treacherous killing. Anobling testified Espana held Bislig only by the coat, which did not necessarily mean complete deprivation of the chance

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 131924)

People of the Philippines charged Carlito Cortez and Gerry Espana (with two John Does) before the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City for murder of Dominador Bislig.
The RTC found both accused guilty of murder and imposed the penalty of life imprisonment.
The RTC also ordered the accused to pay the heirs of Dominador Bislig P50,000.00 as indemnity and actual damages and P100,000.00 as moral damages.
The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal by the accused-appellants contesting the RTC’s credibility findings, the propriety of qualifying circumstances, and related issues on damages and penalty.

Key Factual Allegations

At around ten o’clock in the evening of 20 August 1992, M/Sgt Estefanio C. Anobling saw Carlito Cortez playing billiards with an unidentified person, while Gerry Espana and another unidentified person stood nearby.
Anobling observed the group exchanging glances and signals, which he understood as a prelude to surveillance of Dominador Bislig.
Approximately forty-five minutes later, Dominador Bislig and his nephew Ismael Ledesma arrived at a neighboring store, with Ledesma ordering beer.
After seeing Bislig and Ledesma, the four accused moved into the house of Vicky, from where Anobling watched them from about five meters away.
Anobling testified that the accused “waiv(ed) their hands pointing to Bislig and his nephew,” after which Cortez approached and conversed with the two men while Espana joined intermittently.
Fearing an incident, Anobling left to ensure no violence occurred, returned, and was offered a softdrink by Bislig.
When Anobling asked them to leave due to the late hour, Bislig promised to do so after finishing his beer, after which Anobling returned home.
Shortly thereafter, Anobling overheard one of the accused ask where Ledesma was going, and Ledesma answered that he was accompanying Bislig home.
Anobling then rushed out and saw Cortez and Espana holding Bislig by his coat about four meters away from where Anobling was running.
Cortez stabbed Bislig with a knife while one “John Doe” held a jungle bolo.
Upon seeing Anobling, an assailant shouted “Si Master, si Master!” and the four assailants fled.
Anobling chased the group, apprehended the man wielding the bolo, and disarmed him, though the man later escaped.
Anobling learned from onlookers that the culprits remained in the house of Gilbert Cortez, where he later arrested Cortez (pretending to sleep) and Espana (standing in the yard).

Prosecution Evidence and Medical Findings

On 21 August 1992, Assistant City Prosecutor Romualdo E. Galarrita filed an Information charging conspiracy and mutual assistance to kill, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery, and use of superior strength, punished under Art. 248 in relation to Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code.
Dr. Apolinar Vacalares, who autopsied the victim, testified that Dominador Bislig sustained two stab wounds:
- one on the front anterior chest measuring 5.5 cm in length;
- one on the backside below the right scapula measuring 3 cm in length.
The doctor identified the cause of death as “massive hemopneumothorax due to stab wound,” explaining that the stabbing punctured the lung and filled the thoracic cavity with blood.
The medical testimony described the possible weapon characteristics:
- the front wound could have been caused by a sharp, three-edged, rectangular knife;
- the back wound could have been caused by a knife that had three edges and was rounded.
The doctor opined that, based on the nature and shape of the wounds, it was possible that two different weapons caused the injuries.

Defense Theories Presented

Carlito Cortez testified in defense and claimed alibi, stating that on the night of the incident he was asleep in the house of his brother Gilbert Cortez in Macanhan, Carmen, located about fifty (50) meters from the crime scene.
Gerry Espana claimed that he arrived at Gilbert Cortez’s house at eleven o’clock to fetch Carlito because they were going to conduct routine surveillance as barangay tanods.
Gilbert Cortez testified that he arrived from work at about eight o’clock in the evening, had supper with his family including Carlito, and that they went to sleep.
Gilbert further testified that at about eleven o’clock, Espana arrived to fetch Carlito, and that Anobling and Kagawad Lando Coro later arrived to arrest Carlito and Espana, after which a minor altercation occurred before they proceeded to the police station.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The accused-appellants assailed the RTC’s reliance on M/Sgt Estefanio C. Anobling as a credible eyewitness, characterizing him as merely attempting to appear important.
They challenged the positive identification and highlighted alleged inconsistencies in Anobling’s testimony.
They invoked alibi and denied participation in the stabbing.
They argued that the bolo presented in court could not have been the weapon that caused the fatal wound.
They contended that the RTC erred in appreciating qualifying circumstances used to convict them of murder, and they challenged the resultant penalty.
The parties’ respective positions also necessarily implicated the propriety of the civil indemnity and moral damages awarded by the RTC.

Court’s Assessment of Witness Credibility

The Court accorded highest respect to the trial court’s factual findings, especially on credibility of witnesses, because trial courts observe demeanor and conduct firsthand.
The Court held that Anobling gave a “straight forward, categorical, spontaneous and frank manner” and remained consistent, which supported the RTC’s conclusion that he was credible.
The Court reasoned that Anobling detailed the assault from before aggression began, through identification and clothing, to pursuit and capture, and that such clarity was unlikely without direct presence.
The Court found it significant that the record showed no grudge or bad blood between Anobling and the accused.
The Court treated the accused’s attacks on the witness as largely argumentum ad hominem, unsupported by evidence, and therefore insufficient to overcome identification.

Positive Identification vs. Alibi

The Court held that the trial evidence showed positive and consistent identification by Anobling.
It ruled that alibi and denial could not prevail over positive identification absent a showing that alibi met the strict requirements.
The Court reiterated that for alibi to prosper it must be shown that the accused was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been present at the scene or its immediate vicinity.
It held that even if both accused were at their relatives’ house, the distance of about fifty meters made their presence at the locus criminis not physically impossible.
The Court found alibi implausible where it was established mainly through the accused and their immediate relatives, who had incentives for protection.
The Court accorded very little weight to Gilbert Cortez’s testimony due to bias in favor of his brother, especially given the brothers’ close relationship and the accused’s jeopardy.

Rebuttal of Claimed Inconsistencies

The Court rejected the argument that Anobling