Title
People vs. Mationg
Case
G.R. No. 137989
Decision Date
Mar 27, 2001
Three accused charged with murder for hacking Marcelino Isturis to death; two convicted of homicide, one acquitted due to reasonable doubt; qualifying circumstances unproven.
homicide
alibi
denial

Case Summary (G.R. No. 137989)

Factual Background

The prosecution presented Dr. Eva I. Rasco, who testified that she examined Marcelino’s cadaver at around 2:05 A.M. of 20 December 1994 and observed thirty-seven (37) clean-cut wounds. She specifically identified six (6) deep hacking wounds on the head that caused lacerations on the brain and were fatal.

SPO1 Jose Joy del Rosario testified that at about 11:00 P.M. on 19 December 1994, he received a report that a dead person had been found on the feeder road of Barangay Polocate. He and other officers proceeded to investigate. Their initial investigation was unsuccessful. Thereafter, because Marcelino had earlier reported that SONNY held a grudge against him, the police went to SONNY’s house to inquire, but SONNY denied knowledge of Marcelino’s death.

Teresito Relimbo testified that on 19 December 1994, at about 9:00 P.M., while returning from the house of Tranquilino Retoriano, he heard an unusual thud from the feeder road. After approaching uphill behind a coconut tree for safety, he saw SONNY, ALCEDE, and ANTONIO hack a man lying on the ground with fighting “talibong.” Five minutes later, the trio left together and fled toward the Ambolong plantation. Teresito recognized the victim as Marcelino because, prior to the incident, Marcelino had been plowing his farm. He later executed an affidavit related to the killing. On cross-examination, Teresito admitted that he learned the victim’s identity the following morning, but he insisted on identifying the three accused at the scene. He explained that he had to climb a foot trail about five meters above the feeder road due to fear of being seen and stated that his seeming vacillation was attributed to fear of reprisal from the accused.

Roberto Ricaforte testified that at about 8:30 P.M. of 19 December 1994, while he was by the gate of his compound, he saw SONNY and ALCEDE pass by and walk toward the feeder road. Thirty minutes later, he heard a thud, went to investigate, and saw a person on the ground being “boloed” by SONNY and ALCEDE at a distance of about forty meters. He later learned at the police station the next day that the victim was Marcelino, his bosom friend. He executed a sworn statement on 27 December 1994. On cross-examination, he acknowledged a discrepancy between his sworn statement and his testimony, but he insisted that, during investigation, he informed Chief of Police Seraspi that he had witnessed the hacking incident.

In addition to identification testimony, the prosecution presented circumstances relating to the alleged prior threats and confrontations. Emilia Isturis, Marcelino’s wife, testified about a challenge by SONNY to Marcelino for a fight in October 1994 and confirmed expenses for funeral and miscellaneous costs. Epifanio Retis testified that on 12 December 1994, SONNY approached Marcelino with a gun, but Marcelino was spared because Epifanio intervened and SONNY heeded the warning. Jose Retoriano also testified that on 12 December 1994, SONNY confronted Marcelino and then returned a few minutes later with a gun; Epifanio intervened and pacified them.

Defense Evidence: Denial and Alibi

The accused denied participation and raised alibi. The defense witnesses attempted to show that ANTONIO and ALCEDE were elsewhere at the time of the killing.

Nelson De la Cruz testified that he was the court’s appointed Commissioner and had to report on observations at the scene. Noel Gari testified that he and ALCEDE worked on the Libacao-Janlud provincial road concreting project; he claimed that on 19 December 1994, work had stopped around 6:30 P.M. due to unfavorable weather, and he, ALCEDE, and others stayed at a bodega until the following day. Enjelyn Mationg, ALCEDE’s wife, corroborated that ALCEDE was working on the road project.

Lolita Luces testified that from 13 December 1994 to 26 December 1994, ANTONIO stayed in their house in New Buswang, Kalibo. However, when asked, she conceded that ANTONIO went to Banga sometime on 19 December 1994 and returned that same day at about 7:00 P.M. Leny Alfaro, ANTONIO’s wife, corroborated ANTONIO’s stay from 13 December 1994 to 26 December 1994 but disputed that he went to Banga on 19 December 1994.

Moises Geronimo, barangay captain of Polacate, testified that he learned of Marcelino’s death only the next day because neither the family of Marcelino nor Teresito and Roberto reported anything to him. Romulo Ranigo testified that he saw Teresito at his sala between 7:30 P.M. and 10:30 P.M. while Ranigo and his brothers were watching television at Teresito’s house. Jimmy Beltran, barangay captain of Agbanawan, testified that he was never informed by Roberto (a barangay tanod) about the incident.

Finally, SONNY testified that on 19 December 1994, he was sawing lumber in the boundary of Barangay Sigcay and Bacan and then went to bed after dinner at about 7:00 P.M. He claimed that at about 11:30 P.M., his wife woke him because policemen were looking for him. He then learned about Marcelino’s death and that the inquiry was due to an alleged feud. He denied participation and also denied that he was with ALCEDE and ANTONIO on 19 December 1994.

Trial Court Proceedings

After trial, the RTC convicted SONNY, ALCEDE, and ANTONIO of murder. The trial court gave credence to Teresito Relimbo and Roberto Ricaforte for the positive identification of the perpetrators. It found no ulterior motive for random pinpointing and considered the lapses in eyewitness testimony inconsequential, noting that inconsistencies even appeared to show the witnesses were unrehearsed.

The RTC appreciated abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance. It reasoned that the accused enjoyed superiority in number, power, and weapons and that their mutual cooperation was shown by their ganging on Marcelino and inflicting thirty-six (36) wounds. It further appreciated generic aggravating circumstances of uninhabited place and nocturnity, relying on an ocular inspection that there were no houses within the immediate vicinity and on testimony that the killing occurred when inhabitants were asleep.

As to damages, the RTC credited Emilia’s testimony and awarded PHP 35,250 as actual damages for funeral and other expenses based on the evidence presented. It awarded PHP 832,580 for lost earnings and awarded PHP 50,000 as indemnity.

The dispositive portion imposed death on each accused, and ordered the accused to jointly and severally pay indemnity, actual damages, and lost earnings.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

In the Supreme Court, SONNY, ALCEDE, and ANTONIO raised a single assignment of error: that the lower court erred in giving credence to prosecution evidence and finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

They argued that the testimonies of Teresito and Roberto bore inconsistencies and contradictions on material points, casting doubt on credibility. They pointed to alleged discrepancies: Teresito’s conflicting testimony on the date of the crime; Teresito’s delay in reporting to the police; Roberto’s failure to allege in his sworn affidavit that he saw the hacking; and the conflict between Teresito’s claim that he saw all three accused hack Marcelino and Roberto’s testimony that only SONNY and ALCEDE hacked him. They also challenged the credibility assessment because the presiding judge who penned the conviction had not heard the testimony, hence could not observe demeanor firsthand.

The Office of the Solicitor General supported the RTC’s conviction, maintaining that the accused’s denial and alibi could not overcome the positive identification testimony. It also stressed that inconsistencies, if present, were inconsequential and that honest witnesses often make mistakes without necessarily undermining credibility. It further relied on the general rule that appellate courts do not interfere with trial courts’ credibility findings unless exceptions exist.

Appellate Review on Credibility and Identification

The Supreme Court recognized the general rule that it does not interfere with the trial court’s determination of credibility of witnesses unless record circumstances of weight and influence were overlooked or misinterpreted. It also acknowledged a recognized exception: when the judge who penned the decision is not the judge who received the evidence and heard the witnesses.

On meticulous review, the Court noted a crucial divergence between the eyewitness accounts. Teresito identified SONNY, ALCEDE, and ANTONIO as the aggressors. Roberto, however, was equally explicit that only SONNY and ALCEDE hacked Marcelino. The Court inclined to credit Roberto’s testimony and held that this created reasonable doubt as to ANTONIO’s criminal participation. It therefore absolved ANTONIO from criminal liability.

On the alleged inconsistencies, the Court reiterated that inconsistencies on minor, trivial, and inconsequential matters do not affect credibility. It emphasized that no witness can be expected to remember details with perfect accuracy. It also held that delay in accusing does not necessarily impair credibility if satisfactorily explained. Here, Teresito’s delay was explained by fear of the accused and fear of reprisal because arrest had not yet taken place. The Court found the fear well-founded.

The Court also minimized the discrepancy between Roberto’s affidavit and his testimony, reasoning that ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete and are subordinated in importance to testimony in open court.

Finally, the Court held that the positive identification of SONNY and ALCEDE prevailed over their denials and alibi. It treated alibi and denial as negative and self-serving absent clear and convincing evidence. It further held that SONNY’s claimed stay at home did not make physical presence at the locus criminis impossible because the body was found only a few meters away from his house and SONNY could reach it within a short time. Likewise, ALCEDE failed to establish physical impossibility. For alibi to prosper, the Court required stri

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms