G.R. No. 70091 - People vs. Encipido

Case Summary (G.R. No. 70091)

Factual Background of the Killing

The incident occurred on March 30, 1982. Felicisimo Alciso testified that in the afternoon he went to the deceased’s hut to obtain promised chickens. Before reaching the hut, he heard a gunshot. He then saw the deceased being tied and subjected to fist blows. He stated that three persons mauled the deceased while others stayed at a distance. After the deceased was struck with the butt of a gun and fell, the testimony identified the accused-appellants’ roles in the attack.

Alciso narrated that the hands of the deceased were tied at the back with rattan. He testified that Encipido, also known as “Commander Tanga,” was behind the deceased, while Manatad and De la Pena were on the sides. He further testified that on orders of Encipido, De la Pena struck the deceased’s neck with a bolo, nearly severing the head. Alciso said he fled out of fear.

Alciso later learned that those who killed the deceased were detained and went to jail to verify whether the suspects were among those responsible, explaining that he feared he might be killed next. He recognized the accused-appellants as among the suspects and testified that when he asked De la Pena why he was in jail, De la Pena answered that they were the ones who had beheaded the deceased. Alciso said he could not communicate with Encipido and Manatad at that time.

The prosecution also presented the testimony of Armando Bagacay, which the decision described as hearsay but was nevertheless reproduced to complete the prosecution evidence. Bagacay claimed that Rudy Lamarda told him about witchcraft attributed to the deceased and that help would be sought from rebels to cut off the victim’s head. Bagacay also stated that later Jesus Rubio confided that they would cut Lacumbes’ neck for making Lamarda sick and for witchcraft in the community, and that Bagacay later heard of the deceased’s death at the hands of the rebels.

The evidence was supplemented by testimony from Jorge Ortega, an INP Station Commander of Loreto, Agusan del Norte, and by Mariano Espina, the Municipal Mayor of Loreto. Ortega testified that on May 1, 1982 around 2:30 p.m., he met Encipido at the wharf. Encipido introduced himself as “Commander Tanga,” invited Ortega for a drink, and proceeded with fourteen companions. Ortega testified that the companions introduced themselves as rebels who offered to help the municipal government. Ortega further testified that Encipido and De la Pena told him they were responsible for killings in Dinagat Island, including beheading the deceased.

Espina testified that on May 1, 1982, he was informed by Ortega that “Commander Tanga” and his men wanted to pay him a courtesy call. The group arrived around 8:00 p.m., placed sidearms on a table as a sign of goodwill, and did not result in immediate arrests or confiscation of firearms, which the decision tied to the encounter’s spirit of “reciprocal goodwill.” Espina testified that Encipido told him he had been in the NPA since age thirteen and that he had already killed many people, including the deceased, so that the deceased could no longer harm others through witchcraft. Espina testified further that De la Pena brought out a sharp pointed knife, tried to test its sharpness, admitted cutting the neck of the deceased, and showed the deceased’s ear, dried by then.

Trial Court Proceedings and the Evidence Considered

At trial, the accused-appellants were the only ones tried. They denied participation and presented alibi. Encipido claimed he was sawing lumber from morning until around 3:00 p.m. in Barangay Boa for Norberto Bukid. He stated that after working he rested in Bukid’s house and did not leave the place. He also stated he did not know the deceased or the other prosecution officials except when he surrendered his .45 caliber pistol to Mayor Espina on May 2, 1982, after which he was arrested. He stated he surrendered out of fear of being apprehended for possessing an unlicensed firearm.

Manatad denied the allegations and stated that he only came to know Encipido in jail. He claimed he did not know the deceased nor who killed him. He asserted that on March 30, 1982 he was plowing the field tenanted by his mother-in-law in Barangay Malinao. He testified that he started early and stopped at about 5:00 p.m., after which he stayed home.

De la Pena, unexpectedly, testified in open court. The decision described his testimony as part of a “most unexpected source.” De la Pena testified that he belonged to Encipido’s group, but claimed he was forced to join due to threats to kill him if he refused. He stated he had been with the group from March 28, 1982 and was present on March 30, 1982 when “Commander Tanga” and Manatad killed the deceased, although he claimed he merely stood by. He further testified that the duo were the first ones apprehended and that after them, he was arrested by the CHDF.

A barangay captain, Sergio Peniones, partially corroborated Manatad by stating that he saw Manatad plowing the field in the morning of March 30, 1982. Manatad’s wife, Bienvenida Edusma, testified that after 5:00 p.m. on that day, Manatad stayed home because he was tired. She said she quarreled with him because he refused to accompany her to bring their sick child to Tubajon, which she did alone even though she was seven months pregnant.

On December 5, 1984, the trial court rendered a Decision convicting the accused-appellants of Murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, ordering them to pay damages to the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P12,000.00, and ordering them to pay three-eighths of the costs. De la Pena and his co-accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration on December 26, 1984, which the court denied for being filed more than fifteen days after promulgation. An appeal was allowed as an appeal from the order denying the motion for reconsideration, and because the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, the records were indorsed to the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised on Appeal and the Parties’ Positions

The accused-appellants assigned errors attacking the sufficiency and credibility of the evidence. They argued that the trial court erred in giving credence to hearsay testimonies of Mariano Espina and Jorge Ortega; in crediting the “incredible and hearsay” testimony of Alciso; in appreciating what they considered a judicial admission of De la Pena against co-accused Encipido and Manatad; and in convicting Encipido and Manatad, and De la Pena as well. They also argued that the trial court erred in refusing to give due course to their motion for reconsideration on the ground of untimeliness.

The prosecution position, as upheld by the trial court and sustained in the Supreme Court’s analysis, was that the evidence, taken together, proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The decision emphasized the identification made by Alciso, the corroboration by the autopsy report, the oral acknowledgments made to Ortega and Espina, and De la Pena’s judicial testimony which, in the Court’s view, established not only the group’s existence but also Encipido’s and Manatad’s active participation.

Supreme Court’s Ruling: Conviction Affirmed with Increased Civil Indemnity

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction except as to the civil indemnity, which the Court increased to P30,000.00, in accordance with recent jurisprudence. The Court ordered the payment of proportionate costs.

The Court treated the core inquiry as the credibility of witnesses and the consistency of the evidence with the medical findings. It gave weight to the trial court’s assessment of demeanor and credibility.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court first addressed the challenge to Alciso’s identification. Although Alciso initially stated he could not recognize the persons who mauled the deceased, the decision explained that his testimony later became specific regarding recognition of the killers. The Court noted that Alciso testified he could recognize the three persons who killed the deceased once the killing itself occurred. He described that Encipido ordered De la Pena to cut the head with a bolo that nearly severed the head. When asked when he knew the accused by name, Alciso said he knew them first by face in jail and later by names. The Court also rejected the contention that the witness could not have recognized the assailants due to distance, noting that Alciso provided estimates that could vary and that the material fact was that he witnessed the incident and gave an account corroborated by other evidence.

The Court further reasoned that the defendants’ admissions aligned with Alciso’s narration and with the autopsy findings. It treated Encipido’s and De la Pena’s verbal acknowledgments of guilt to Ortega and Espina as admissions and thus admissible under Sections 22 and 29 of the Rules of Court, respectively addressing admissions of a party and confessions. The Court held that oral confessions may be proved by any competent witness who heard the confession, understood it, and remembered its substance.

It also relied on the doctrine that oral admissions made independently without collusion are admissible as circumstantial evidence against co-accused, especially where multiple extrajudicial declarations interlock in material respects. The Court characterized these declarations as “interlocking confessions” and treated them as an exception to the general rule that extrajudicial admissions bind only the declarant.

The Court addressed the unexpected testimony of De la Pena in open court. It held that although De la Pena attempted to exculpate himself by claiming coercion and that he only stood by, his statement still retained its evidentiary character as a declaration involving guilt. It reasoned that such a statement does not lose its character merely because it contains exculpatory elements, since statements may be weighed as a whole. The Court considered De la Pena’s exculpation as contradicted by Alciso’s credible testimony that D

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 70091)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted Brigido Encipido, Charlito Manatad, and Eddie de la Pena (the accused-appellants), while Jesus Rubio, Rudy Lumarda, Jose Cabageran, Cris Ramirez, and Jesus or John Doe remained at large.
The case originated in Criminal Case No. 14 of the Regional Trial Court, Tenth Judicial Region, Branch 32, charging all eight persons with Murder for the death of Jose Lacumbes (the deceased).
Only the accused-appellants were tried because the other five accused were not apprehended.
The Regional Trial Court promulgated a Decision on December 5, 1984 convicting the accused-appellants of Murder and sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, with damages of P12,000.00 and three-eighths of the costs.
The accused-appellants filed a Motion for Reconsideration on December 26, 1984, which the trial court denied for being filed more than fifteen (15) days from promulgation.
An appeal was allowed by the then Intermediate Appellate Court from the Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration, not from the judgment itself.
Because the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, the record was endorsed to the Supreme Court, which accepted the appeal in the interest of substantial justice.
The accused-appellants raised multiple assignments of error challenging the admissibility and credibility of prosecution evidence and assailing the refusal to entertain the Motion for Reconsideration.
The accused-appellants also included a challenge to the conviction of Eddie de la Pena.
Justice Yap filed a dissenting opinion, disagreeing with the majority’s approach on the use of one accused’s in-court testimony against co-accused and on the sufficiency of proof of extrajudicial admissions and eyewitness identification.

Key Factual Allegations

On March 30, 1982, the deceased, a resident of Barangay Mabini, Municipality of Tubajon, Surigao del Norte, was found killed near the family hut in Sitio Capacohan in the same barangay.
A post mortem examination conducted the following morning revealed (1) an incised wound of the neck, (2) eight (8) multiple stab wounds at the back (one inch in length and two and a half inches in depth), (3) the removed right external ear, (4) contusions left lumbar region, and (5) both hands tied at the back with rattan.
The stated cause of death was hemorrhage, severe, secondary to the incised wounds of the neck and the multiple stab wounds at the back.
The information charged Murder for the killing of the deceased, attributing participation to Brigido Encipido, Charlito Manatad, and Eddie de la Pena, among others.
Witness Felicisimo Alciso testified that in the afternoon of March 30, 1982, he went to the deceased’s hut to get promised chickens and heard a gunshot before reaching the hut.
Alciso testified that he saw the deceased being tied and subjected to fist blows by three persons who mauled him while others stayed at a distance.
Alciso stated that one person struck the deceased with the butt of a gun, causing him to fall to the ground.
Alciso described the arrangement and roles during the assault, testifying that the deceased’s hands were tied at the back, Encipido was behind the deceased, and Manatad and de la Pena were on the sides.
Alciso testified that on orders of Encipido, de la Pena struck the deceased’s neck with a bolo, which almost severed the latter’s head.
Alciso reported fleeing from the scene and later went to jail to verify whether the detained suspects were among the perpetrators because he feared he would be next killed.
Alciso testified that he recognized the accused-appellants when he asked de la Pena why he was in jail, and de la Pena allegedly answered that they were the ones who had beheaded the deceased.
Alciso added that he could not initially speak to Encipido and Manatad.
A second witness, Armando Bagacay, offered testimony concerning alleged statements by Rudy Lumarda and later by Jesus Rubio regarding witchcraft and the plan to cut the deceased’s neck; however, the trial and majority treated parts of this testimony as hearsay while still reproducing it to complete the prosecution evidence.
Witness Jorge Ortega, an INP Station Commander, testified that on May 1, 1982, Encipido, identifying himself as “Commander Tanga,” invited him for a drink and disclosed, during the conversation, that Encipido and de la Pena were responsible for beheading the deceased and other killings.
Witness Mariano Espina, the Municipal Mayor of Loreto, testified that on May 1, 1982, Ortega informed him of a courtesy call by “Commander Tanga” and his men, who arrived at about 8:00 in the evening and displayed sidearms placed on a table as a sign of goodwill.
Mayor Espina testified that “Commander Tanga” confided to him that he had been a member of the NPA since age 13 and had killed many people, including the deceased, so the deceased could no longer harm the community with witchcraft.
Mayor Espina testified that de la Pena brought out a sharp-pointed knife, tried it for sharpness, admitted having cut the neck of the deceased, and showed the deceased’s ear already dried by that time.
De la Pena, unexpectedly, testified in open court and admitted that he belonged to “Commander Tanga’s” group but claimed he was forced to join by threats and that he merely stood by when the killing occurred.
De la Pena testified that he was with the group from March 28, 1982, was present on March 30, 1982 when “Commander Tanga” and Manatad killed the deceased, and that the first apprehension involved Encipido and Manatad, followed by his arrest by the CHDF.
The accused-appellants denied the killings and raised alibi, with Encipido claiming he was sawing lumber from morning until 3:00 P.M. in Barangay Boa for Norberto Bukid.
Encipido claimed he rested and did not leave and further denied knowing the deceased, Ortega, or Mayor Espina except when he surrendered his .45 caliber pistol on May 2, 1982 out of fear of arrest for an unlicensed firearm.
Encipido claimed that after detention he and others were maltreated at PC headquarters in Surigao City and forced to sign an affidavit admitting he was “Commander Tanga.”
Manatad claimed he was plowing the field tenanted by his mother-in-law at Barangay Malinao on March 30, 1982, starting early and stopping at about 5:00 P.M., then staying home.
A Barangay Captain partially corroborated Manatad by testifying that he saw Manatad plowing in the morning.
Manatad’s wife testified he stayed home after 5:00 P.M. due to fatigue and that she traveled alone carrying their sick child to Tubajon despite pregnancy.

Evidence on Record

The prosecution’s identification of the accused-appellants rested primarily on Alciso’s eyewitness account, corroborated by physical findings in the autopsy, and supported by alleged verbal admissions to government officials.
The majority treated Alciso’s initial difficulty in recognizing assailants as a limited part of the testimony and emphasized that Alciso later testified he could recognize the three persons who killed the deceased and identified the accused-appellants in court.
The majority treated Alciso’s ability to recognize the accused-appellants as consistent with his account of distance, noting that he estimated the scene as about “twenty arms length” and that distances stated were approximations.
The majority rejected the defense attack that the jail visit and later name recognition were incredible, crediting the witness’s explanation that he feared being killed next.
The majority treated Alciso’s failure to name culprits in an earlier sworn statement as attributable to affidavits being commonly drafted with possible omissions and misunderstanding.
The prosecution additionally relied on oral confessions/admissions allegedly made by Encipido and de la Pena to Ortega and Mayor Espina, which the majority held admissible because they were statements against interest by parties.
The majority reasoned that oral confessions could be proved by any competent witness who heard, understood, and remembered the substance of the conversation, and thus Ortega and Espina were competent to testify on the admissions.
The prosecution also relied on De la Pena’s extrajudicial admissions allegedly made to Mayor Espina, including admission of cutting the deceased’s neck and showing