G.R. No. 110558 - People vs. De Leon

Case Summary (G.R. No. 110558)

Factual Background

On the evening of 14 November 1988, at about 8:00 p.m., Cesar Cruz, a kargador on M/V Arayat, was watching the television program “Eye to Eye” through a window of a house near the pier in Barangay Cotta. The house was situated just across the Petron Service Station. Edmar Ramirez and other persons were also watching the show.

Without warning, two persons approached from behind and seized Cruz’s hands. One of them thrust a knife into Cruz’s left upper back. Despite the injury, Cruz managed to run toward M/V Arayat, docked beside M/V Gerlyn II. Ramirez, who witnessed the assault at close range—about half a meter away—and under the illumination of two fluorescent lamps, recognized the assailants. Ramirez testified that De Leon, who was holding Cruz’s left hand, stabbed Cruz, while Alarcon, who held the other hand, assisted in holding Cruz. Ramirez immediately chased Cruz toward M/V Arayat, notwithstanding a warning from Alarcon. Ramirez later helped bring Cruz to Quezon Memorial Hospital.

A second witness, Dinia Dala Saludes, the daughter of the owner of M/V Arayat, testified that after her business delivery at the Petron Service Station, she saw the stabbing and reacted by following Alarcon, who was then chasing the wounded victim. Shortly afterward, she heard Alarcon shouting at the gangplank of M/V Gerlyn II: “May mangyayari pa sa mga taga Arayat,” a statement understood as an indication that something would still happen to the people of Arayat, particularly the crew.

Saludes reported the incident to P/Sgt. Augusto C. Trinidad and requested his assistance. By the time they arrived at the pier, M/V Gerlyn II had already sailed away. Trinidad, Saludes, and her husband then searched for the vessel by using a hired boat. The vessel was later found anchored between Barangays Ransohan and Barra in Lucena City. Trinidad boarded, announced himself as a policeman, and inquired whether De Leon and Alarcon were present. When informed they were hiding in the storeroom, Trinidad summoned them to come out. Alarcon complied, but De Leon did not. Trinidad entered the storeroom and found De Leon covering himself with a sack. After informing them they were suspects in the killing of Cesar Cruz, Trinidad brought both to police headquarters for investigation and endorsement to the desk officer.

Cruz died that same night. Dr. Eva Yamamoto testified that the single stab wound caused hemorrhage leading to cardio-respiratory failure and death.

On the night of the incident, Ramirez executed an affidavit before Pfc. Felipe Navarro, identifying De Leon as the one who stabbed Cruz while holding one of Cruz’s hands, and identifying Alarcon as the one holding the victim’s other hand.

Proceedings in the Trial Court

The prosecution version alleged coercion aimed at altering Ramirez’s testimony. On 22 November 1988, shortly after the incident, Rogelio Dala, identified as the owner of M/V Gerlyn II, confronted Ramirez, threatened him, and ordered that Ramirez execute another affidavit and not testify, under threat that something would happen to him. Dala gave Ramirez P950.00 and told him to get lost for at least two years. In response, an affidavit exculpating Alarcon was prepared by Pfc. Navarro. Ramirez was brought to Atty. Meliton V. Angeles in front of Pinausukan, a beer garden. The lawyer signed the affidavit as counsel. Ramirez also affixed his signature without reading its contents, upon instructions given by Dala and Navarro. Ramirez then went to Guinyangan, Quezon.

Ramirez later repented. On 6 December 1988, he executed a further affidavit confirming the truth and genuineness of his initial affidavit dated 14 November 1988 and repudiating the retraction affidavit executed on 28 November 1988. According to the prosecution, Cruz’s death resulted from a stabbing committed by De Leon while Alarcon held Cruz’s hands, and that the two acted with joint purpose. It also relied on the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

An information for murder was filed on 22 November 1988 against Celedonio de Leon and Ruben A. Alarcon in the RTC of Lucena City, Branch 58.

Defense Version and Theory of the Case

The accused denied participation or, at minimum, denied conspiratorial liability. De Leon testified that while he was loading cargoes aboard M/V Gerlyn II on the night of the incident, Cesar Cruz stabbed him with a kitchen knife. De Leon claimed he sustained a slight injury above his left waist. He then allegedly grabbed the knife from Cruz and unintentionally stabbed Cruz. De Leon asserted that he ran immediately because he feared Cruz might retaliate. He further claimed that M/V Gerlyn II set sail at around 9:00 p.m. to evade Cruz’s companions despite the scheduled departure at midnight. Because the sea was at low tide, the boat could not proceed to San Andres and instead anchored at Barangay Barra, more than one kilometer away from Barangay Cotta. There, De Leon and Alarcon were allegedly apprehended by three policemen, taken to police headquarters, and investigated. De Leon said he told the police he had hit Cruz with a knife but that it was unintentional. He also insisted Alarcon had nothing to do with the stabbing.

Alarcon testified that he repaired the engine of M/V Gerlyn II. He later went out to buy cigarettes and, as he was about to leave a nearby store, he saw De Leon and Cruz struggling in a place where people were watching television. He then saw Cruz run away. Alarcon returned to the boat and resumed repairing the engine. After sensing commotion outside, he saw Cruz lying on the other boat. When he returned to his own boat, De Leon was already there. Alarcon also testified that at about 7:30 p.m., M/V Gerlyn II sailed with thirteen crew members. Afterward, a motor boat appeared carrying Saludes, her husband, and a policeman, and the accused were forced to Barangay Cotta with the policeman and then taken to police headquarters. Alarcon denied involvement in the killing.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

On appeal, the accused ascribed to the trial court several alleged errors, particularly in its assessment of witness credibility and in its findings regarding conspiracy, treachery, and murder liability.

The defense first attacked the credibility of Edmar Ramirez by pointing to his recantation of the affidavit executed on 14 November 1988, and his later repudiation of the affidavit of recantation. The appellants argued that Ramirez’s shifting statements created reasonable doubt.

They also challenged the trial court’s reliance on Din ia Dala Saludes, including the fact that she allegedly did not execute an affidavit. They maintained that the testimony was insufficient or unreliable.

On the substantive issue, the defense insisted there was no conspiracy and therefore the liability should not extend to both accused. Finally, they argued that the incident should at most constitute homicide with the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense, given the alleged nature of the confrontation preceding the stabbing.

Trial Court Findings and Supreme Court Review of Credibility

The RTC gave full credence to the prosecution witnesses and held that conspiracy and treachery were established. In its assessment of Ramirez’s affidavits, the Supreme Court found that the inconsistency was adequately explained. Ramirez’s original affidavit identified the accused on the very night of the stabbing while the events were still fresh in his mind. The later affidavit retracting those statements was treated as product of threats and monetary consideration, executed only shortly after the stabbing incident and subsequently repudiated by Ramirez in the 6 December 1988 affidavit.

The Supreme Court noted that affidavits of recantation are generally treated as exceedingly unreliable because they can be obtained from poor or ignorant witnesses, often for monetary considerations. It held that the affidavit of recantation relied upon by Alarcon was correctly discarded because it was obtained by threat coupled with P950.00 and was executed two weeks after the stabbing, then repudiated later.

Conspiracy, Joint Purpose, and Concerted Action

The Supreme Court also sustained the finding of conspiracy despite the lack of direct evidence of prior agreement. It explained that conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime. It found several circumstances demonstrating joint purpose and concerted action. First, the accused approached and came together to the scene. Second, while Alarcon held Cruz’s right hand, De Leon held the other hand and stabbed Cruz. Third, Alarcon was heard shouting “May mangyayari pa sa mga taga Arayat,” indicating a coordinated posture toward the crew of M/V Arayat. Fourth, the two left together on board M/V Gerlyn II at 9:00 p.m. on 14 November 1988, even though the vessel’s scheduled departure was at 12:00 midnight, when the water was expected to be at high tide. The Court rejected the defense argument that a single wound necessarily negated conspiracy. It held that the presence of conspiracy rendered the act of the actual slayer attributable to both accused; accordingly, Alarcon was equally liable for murder.

Characterization of the Killing: Treachery and Rejection of Incomplete Self-Defense

The defense asserted that the crime was not murder but only homicide, and that it should be mitigated by incomplete self-defense

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 110558)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines prosecuted Celedonio B. De Leon and Ruben A. Alarcon for murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City, Branch 58, in Criminal Case No. 88-609.
The RTC, through Judge Ludovico C. Lopez, convicted both accused of murder and imposed reclusion perpetua each, ordered joint and several payment of P50,000.00 civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim, and taxed costs against the accused.
The accused-appellants seasonably appealed, assigning errors principally on the trial court’s credibility assessments, the sufficiency of corroboration, the finding of conspiracy, and the legal classification of the crime as murder.

Key Factual Allegations

The stabbing occurred at about 8:00 p.m. on 14 November 1988 in the vicinity of the pier at Barangay Cotta, Lucena City, near the Petron Service Station.
The victim, Cesar Cruz, was repeatedly described as a kargador at M/V Arayat, while he watched the television program “Eye to Eye” through a window near the pier.
Two assailants approached from behind and seized Cruz’s hands; one of them thrust a knife into the left upper back of Cruz.
Despite the injury, Cruz ran toward M/V Arayat, which was docked beside M/V Gerlyn II.
Edmar Ramirez witnessed the incident from about half a meter, testified he easily recognized the assailants due to fluorescent lamp illumination, and identified De Leon as the one stabbing Cruz while holding his left hand, and Alarcon as the one holding the other hand.
Dinia Dala Saludes, who was about to leave the Petron Service Station after delivering money to the owner, witnessed Alarcon chasing the wounded victim and later heard Alarcon shout, “May mangyayari pa sa mga taga Arayat,” apparently referring to the crew of M/V Arayat.
Saludes reported the incident to P/Sgt. Augusto C. Trinidad, but when they arrived at the pier, M/V Gerlyn II had already sailed away.
Trinidad, Saludes, and her husband used a hired boat to search and later found M/V Gerlyn II anchored between Barangays Ransohan and Barra.
Trinidad boarded the vessel, identified himself as a policeman, and learned that De Leon and Alarcon were hiding in a storeroom.
De Leon was found covering himself with a sack, and both suspects were brought to police headquarters and endorsed for investigation.
Cesar Cruz died that same night; Dr. Eva Yamamoto attributed death to hemorrhage caused by the single stab wound, leading to cardio-respiratory failure.

Evidence Presented at Trial

The prosecution relied on the consistent identification by Ramirez made in an affidavit executed on the very night of the incident and corroborated by an additional in-court account.
Ramirez executed an affidavit before Pfc. Felipe Navarro on 14 November 1988, pointing to De Leon as the stabber and Alarcon as holding one of Cruz’s hands.
A subsequent affidavit implicated a retraction by Ramirez, dated 28 November 1988, which De Leon attempted to use in his defense.
The prosecution explained that Ramirez recanted his original statement only after being threatened and paid by Rogelio Dala, the owner of M/V Gerlyn II, and after legal assistance in drafting and signing a retraction affidavit.
Ramirez later executed, on 6 December 1988, an affidavit confirming the truth of his original affidavit and repudiating the recantation, and he testified in court accordingly.
The prosecution also used Saludes’s testimony describing the incident and her participation in the search and apprehension of the accused.

Defense Theory and Contentions

De Leon claimed self-inflicted-inadvertence rather than intentional killing; he testified that Cesar Cruz stabbed him with a kitchen knife, that he sustained a slight injury above his left waist, that he grabbed the knife and unintentionally stabbed Cruz.
De Leon asserted fear of retaliation from Cruz and claimed he fled toward his boat, and he also claimed that the vessel sailed due to companions of Cruz.
De Leon invoked the affidavit of recantation executed by Ramirez dated 28 November 1988, arguing that it demonstrated lack of his participation.
Alarcon denied involvement by testifying that he was repairing the engine, only later saw De Leon and Cruz struggling in an area where people were watching television, and subsequently saw Cruz lying on the other boat.
Alarcon further testified that at about 7:30 p.m. M/V Gerlyn II sailed with thirteen crew members, and that Dinia Saludes, her husband, and a policeman later appeared and caused the accused to be brought to Barangay Cotta and then to police headquarters.
The accused-appellants contended that the RTC erred in giving weight to Ramirez’s testimony due to his alleged affidavit recantation, and they argued that Saludes’s corroboration was improperly credited.
They further challenged the RTC’s findings of conspiracy and treachery, and they sought reclassification to homicide with the supposed mitigating circumstance of in