Case Summary (G.R. No. 100912)
Factual Narrative Established by the Prosecution
On October 7, 1990, at about 7:00 p.m., Jojo Belmonte left a house to buy cigarettes and was set upon by Doro Nitcha. A physical altercation ensued; Doro was later pulled away by his sister Victoria and taken home. While the Sibayan family members were walking home (on an earthen dike), Florestan Nitcha arrived at the scene brandishing a gun, shouted threats in Tagalog, and fired toward the Sibayans. A bullet struck May in the back of the head and exited through the forehead. She was given first aid at the Tayug hospital and was being taken to Dagupan when she died en route. After the shooting, Florestan returned home and surrendered himself and his service firearm at the San Quintin police station.
Eyewitness Testimony and Positive Identification
Three prosecution witnesses — Jose Belmonte, Agustin Sibayan, and Joselito Sibayan — testified in open court that they saw Florestan Nitcha arrive, shout threats, and fire a .38 caliber firearm. Testimony established approximate distances (three to four meters), that the victim’s back faced the shooter, and that the shooter fired two shots (first striking the victim, second hitting a cemented wall). The witnesses gave clear and specific descriptions of the accused’s words and actions at the scene.
Defense Theory and Its Rejection
The accused denied responsibility and advanced an alternative theory that an unnamed companion of Jojo Belmonte fired the gun, allegedly missing the accused’s brother and instead striking May. The trial court and the Supreme Court rejected this account as implausible, noting the improbability that a bullet fired downward at a person on the ground would alter trajectory to strike another person at an elevated position. The court found the prosecution witnesses’ consistent, positive identifications more credible than the defendant’s denial and fabricated scenario.
Credibility Considerations and Relatives as Witnesses
Although two prosecution witnesses were relatives of the victim, the Court reiterated that familial relationship alone does not disqualify testimony where the witness actually observed the event. The accused’s admitted long-standing acquaintance and good relations with the Sibayans further undercut any suggestion of a conspiracy to falsely accuse him. The Court held that positive, categorical testimony of eyewitnesses must be given due weight and can sustain conviction when it demonstrates guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Claims of Procedural Defects Addressed
The accused raised several procedural complaints: (a) that testimony of a prosecution witness was hearsay because it was heard in the accused’s absence; (b) alleged bias of the trial judge; (c) illegality of arrest and detention for lack of preliminary investigation; and (d) absence of physical proof (negative paraffin test). The Court found these claims unavailing: defense counsel’s deliberate choice not to cross-examine Agustin Sibayan waived the hearsay objection; a mere apprehension of judicial bias, without concrete proof, does not establish denial of the judge’s neutrality; posting of bail and entry of a not-guilty plea foreclosed certain challenges to arrest procedure; and a negative paraffin (nitrate) test does not conclusively prove a person did not fire a gun, as a negative result is consistent with washing hands or other factors and with certain firearms.
Bail and Constitutional/Rule-Based Principles
Relying on the 1987 Constitution (Section 13, Article III) and Rule 114 jurisprudence cited by the parties, the Court noted that bail before conviction is a matter of right for offenses punishable by penalties lower than reclusion perpetua; but for offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua, bail is discretionary and is denied if the evidence of guilt is strong. Upon conviction and imposition of a punishment of reclusion perpetua, bail is no longer available during appeal. The Court referenced prior decisions applying these constitutional and procedural rules.
Legal Characterization: Treachery Not Proven — Conviction Reduced to Homicide
Although the trial court originally convicted for murder (predicated on treachery), the Supreme Court concluded that treachery was not established. Key points supporting this conclusion: Doro had been dragged away and the accused arrived only 4–5 minutes later; there was no evidence the accused made preparations or conscious
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 100912)
Procedural History
- The case is an appeal from the decision rendered on September 22, 1994 by Hon. Pedro C. Cacho, Presiding Judge of Branch 52, Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Tayug, Pangasinan.
- The trial court pronounced the accused-appellant culpable for the murder of May Villa Rica Sibayan and imposed reclusion perpetua as the principal penalty.
- The trial court ordered additional monetary awards to the heirs of the victim: P50,000.00 as indemnity, P25,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P43,000.00 for actual expenses (record citations: p. 494, Record; p. 132, Rollo).
- Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, invoking twelve (12) alleged errors by the trial court that generally questioned the sufficiency of evidence and various procedural and evidentiary matters (pp. 87-88, Rollo).
- The Supreme Court, through Justice Melo, rendered the decision on January 19, 1995 (310 Phil. 287, G.R. No. 113517), modifying the conviction from murder to homicide and imposing an indeterminate sentence; otherwise affirming the appealed decision.
Factual Background
- Date and time: October 7, 1990, at around 7:00 p.m.
- Location: Near a sari-sari store and an earthen dike (tambao) in Purok IV, Barangay Alac, San Quintin, Pangasinan.
- Sequence of events as adopted from the Office of the Solicitor General and supported by the record:
- Jojo (Jose) Belmonte went out to buy cigarettes at a nearby store.
- Doro (Patrolman) Nitcha arrived, uttered the vernacular words "You are one of them" ("Maysa ca met") and began mauling Jojo Belmonte.
- Jojo fought back; after a few minutes of scuffle, May Villarica (a.k.a. Lydia) Sibayan, Joselito, Agustin, and Marcelina (Nenet) Sibayan arrived and attempted to pacify the fight, but Doro refused to be pacified.
- Victoria Corpuz (Baby), Doro’s sister, arrived and dragged Doro away from the fight, bringing him home.
- While the Sibayans were walking home along the earthen dike, appellant Florestan Nitcha (brother of Doro) arrived at the store brandishing a gun and shouting in Tagalog, "Walanghiya kayo, putangina ninyo, papatayin ko kayong lahat!"
- Appellant fired his gun toward the Sibayans; a bullet struck May at the back of the head and exited through the middle of her forehead.
- Appellant aimed at Joselito but missed.
- May was taken to Eastern Pangasinan District Hospital in Tayug for first aid, and upon a doctor’s advice was transported to a Dagupan hospital, but she expired en route.
- Shortly after the shooting, appellant returned to his mother’s house and then surrendered at the San Quintin police station together with his service firearm.
- An indictment for murder was filed against accused-appellant (p. 18, Rollo).
Charges, Trial Court Ruling, and Penalties Initially Imposed
- Charge: Murder arising from the fatal shooting of May Villa Rica Sibayan.
- Trial court finding: Accused-appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.
- Trial court penalty: Reclusion perpetua.
- Monetary awards imposed by the trial court in favor of the heirs of the victim: P50,000.00 indemnity; P25,000.00 moral damages; P20,000.00 exemplary damages; and P43,000.00 actual expenses (pp. 494, Record; p. 132, Rollo).
Witness Identification and Testimonial Evidence
- The prosecution’s conviction rested primarily on positive in-court identifications and narrative testimony of eyewitnesses present at the scene.
- Key prosecution witnesses and salient points from their testimony:
- Jose (Jojo) Belmonte:
- Observed Florestan Nitcha arrive, declare "Where are they? Come out, I'll kill you!" and then shoot Lydia (May) Sibayan.
- Described appellant as standing and using a short firearm.
- Estimated distances: Lydia was more or less three to four meters from Florestan when shot; Jojo put himself at roughly three meters at the time he saw the shooting.
- Testified appellant shot twice: first shot hit Lydia causing her to fall, second shot struck the cement wall of a house.
- Pointed to the back portion of the victim’s head as the area struck (tsn. pp. 10-13, Dec. 10, 1991; pp. 54-56, Rollo).
- Agustin Sibayan:
- Explained the formation of the four persons walking on the earthen dike, how Lydia fell behind and thus was struck.
- Placed Lydia’s back turned toward Nitcha when she was shot; estimated Lydia was about three meters away from Nitcha, with Agustin himself about 20 meters away when he observed the incident.
- Noted the brightness of the moon aided identification (tsn., pp. 6-10, Sept. 9, 1992; pp. 56-57, Rollo).
- Confirmed two shots were fired, the first hitting Lydia and the second aimed toward them and found to have struck the house wall.
- Joselito Sibayan:
- Testified that Florestan arrived, shouted the Tagalog threat ("walanghiya kayo, putangina ninyo, papatayin ko kayong lahat"), and then shot his wife.
- Confirmed the use of a .38 caliber firearm by appellant (tsn., p. 7, Feb. 2, 1993; p. 58, Rollo).
- Jose (Jojo) Belmonte:
- The record shows positive and categorical statements by three prosecution witnesses that appellant fired the gun and caused the victim’s death (pp. 130-132, Rollo).
Defense Version and Theory of the Case
- Accused-appellant’s denial: He maintained throughout that he was not responsible for the death of May Villarrica Sibayan.
- Defense theory advanced at trial:
- Claimed that one of Jojo Belmonte’s companions pul