RP vs. Gonzales (1990)
RP vs. Gonzales (1990)
RP vs. Gonzales (1990)
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 80762 March 19, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FAUSTA GONZALES, AUGUSTO GONZALES, CUSTODIO GONZALES,
SR., CUSTODIO GONZALES, JR., NERIO GONZALES and ROGELIO
LANIDA, accused, CUSTODIO GONZALES, SR., accused-appellant.
SARMIENTO, J.:
In a decision dated October 31, 1984, the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo,
Branch XXXVIII (38), in Criminal Case No. 13661, entitled "People of the
Philippines vs. Fausta Gonzales, Augusto Gonzales, Custodia Gonzales,
Custodio Gonzales, Jr., Nerio Gonzales and Rogelio Lanida," found all the
accused, except Rogelio Lanida who eluded arrest and up to now has remain
at large and not yet arrained, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder as defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. They were
sentenced "to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion
temporal, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased victim in the amount of
P40,000.00, plus moral damages in the sum of P14,000.00 and to pay the
costs." The victim was Lloyd Peacerrada, 44, landowner, and a resident of
Barangay Aspera, Sara, Iloilo.
Through their counsel, all the accused, except of course Rogelio Lanida, filed
a notice of appeal from the trial court's decision. During the pendency of
their appeal and before judgment thereon could be rendered by the Court of
Appeals, however, all the accused-appellants, except Custodio Gonzales, Sr.,
withdrew their appeal and chose instead to pursue their respective
applications for parole before the then Ministry, now Department, of Justice,
Parole Division.
On October 27, 1987, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision on the appeal
of Custodio Gonzales, Sr. It modified the appealed decision in that the lone
appellant was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of
Lloyd Peacerrada in the amount of P30,000.00. In all other respect, the
decision of the trial court was affirmed. Further, on the basis of our ruling
in People vs. Ramos, the appellate court certified this case to us for review.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
At around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of February 21, 1981, Bartolome Paja,
the barangay captain of Barangay Tipacla, Ajuy, Iloilo, was awakened from
his sleep by the spouses Augusto and Fausta Gonzales. Augusto informed
Paja that his wife had just killed their landlord, Lloyd Peacerrada, and thus
would like to surrender to the authorities. Seeing Augusto still holding the
knife allegedly used in the killing and Fausta with her dress smeared with
blood, Paja immediately ordered a nephew of his to take the spouses to the
police authorities at the Municipal Hall in Poblacion, Ajuy. As instructed, Paja's
nephew brought the Gonzales spouses, who "backrode" on his motorcycle, to
the municipal building. Upon reaching the Ajuy Police sub-station, the couple
informed the police on duty of the incident. That same night, Patrolman
Salvador Centeno of the Ajuy Police Force and the Gonzales spouses went
back to Barangay Tipacla. Reaching Barangay Tipacla the group went to
Paja's residence where Fausta was made to stay, while Paja, Patrolman
Centeno, and Augusto proceeded to the latter's residence at Sitio Nabitasan
where the killing incident allegedly occurred. There they saw the lifeless
body of Lloyd Peacerrada, clad only in an underwear, sprawled face down
inside the bedroom. The group stayed for about an hour during which time
Patrolman Centeno inspected the scene and started to make a rough sketch
thereof and the immediate surroundings. The next day, February 22, 1981, at
around 7:00 o'clock in the morning, Patrolman Centeno, accompanied by a
photographer, went back to the scene of the killing to conduct further
investigations. Fausta Gonzales, on the other hand, was brought back that
same day by Barangay Captain Paja to the police substation in Ajuy. When
Patrolman Centeno and his companion arrived at Sitio Nabitasan, two
members of the 321st P.C. Company stationed in Sara, Iloilo, who had
likewise been informed of the incident, were already there conducting their
own investigation. Patrolman Centeno continued with his sketch;
photographs of the scene were likewise taken. The body of the victim was
then brought to the Municipal Hall of Ajuy for autopsy.
The autopsy of Lloyd Peacerrada's cadaver was performed at about 11:20
a.m. on February 22, 1981; after completed, a report was made with the
following findings:
PHYSICAL FINDINGS
1. Deceased is about 5 ft. and 4 inches in height, body
moderately built and on cadaveric rigidity.
EXTERNAL FINDINGS
The autopsy report thus showed that Dr. Rojas "found sixteen (16) wounds,
five (5) of which are fatal because they penetrated the internal organs, heart,
lungs and intestines of the deceased."
On February 23, two days after the incident, Augusto Gonzales appeared
before the police sub-station in the poblacion of Ajuy and voluntarily
surrendered to Police Corporal Ben Sazon for detention and protective
custody for "having been involved" in the killing of Lloyd Peacerrada. He
requested that he be taken to the P.C. headquarters in Sara, Iloilo where his
wife, Fausta, was already detained having been indorsed thereat by the Ajuy
police force.
Based on the foregoing and on the investigations conducted by the Ajuy
police force and the 321st P.C. Company, an information for murder dated
August 26, 1981, was filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo against the
spouses Augusto and Fausta Gonzales. The information read as follows:
The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses FAUSTA
GONZALES and AUGUSTO GONZALES of the crime of
MURDER committed as follows:
That on or about the 21st day of February, 1981, in the
Municipality of Ajuy, Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named
accused with four other companions whose identities are
still unknown and are still at large, armed with sharppointed and deadly weapons, conspiring, confederating
and helping each other, with treachery and evident
premeditation, with deliberate intent and decided purpose
to kill, and taking advantage of their superior strength and
number, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault, stab, hack, hit and wound Lloyd
D. Peacerrada, with the weapons with which said accused
were provided at the time, thereby inflicting upon said
Lloyd D. Peacerrada multiple wounds on different parts of
his body as shown by autopsy report attached to the record
of this case which multifarious wounds caused the
immediate death of said Lloyd D. Peacerrada.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Iloilo City, August 26, 1981.
When arraigned on September 16, 1981, Augusto and Fausta both entered a
plea of not guilty. Before trial, however, Jose Huntoria who claimed to have
witnessed the killing of Lloyd Peacerrada, presented himself to Nanie
stabbing and hacking the victim, they then lifted his body and carried it into
the house of the Gonzales spouses which was situated some 20 to 25 meters
away from the "linasan". 25 Huntoria then proceeded on his way home. Upon
reaching his house, he related what he saw to his mother and to his
wife before he went to sleep. Huntoria explained that he did not immediately
report to the police authorities what he witnessed for fear of his life. In
October 1981 however, eight months after the extraordinary incident he
allegedly witnessed, bothered by his conscience plus the fact that his father
was formerly a tenant of the victim which, to his mind, made him likewise a
tenant of the latter, he thought of helping the victim's widow, Nanie
Peacerrada. Hence, out of his volition, he travelled from his place at Sitio
Nabitasan, in Barangay Tipacla Municipality of Ajuy, to Sara, Iloilo where Mrs.
Peacerrada lived, and related to her what he saw on February 21, 1981.
Except Fausta who admitted killing Lloyd Peacerrada in defense of her
honor as the deceased attempted to rape her, all the accused denied
participation in the crime. The herein accused-appellant, Custodio Gonzales,
Sr., claimed that he was asleep in his house which was located some one
kilometer away from the scene of the crime when the incident happened. He
asserted that he only came to know of it after his grandchildren by Augusto
and Fausta Gonzales went to his house that night of February 21, 1981 to
inform him.
The trial court disregarded the version of the defense; it believed the
testimony of Huntoria.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Custodia Gonzales, Sr., the lone appellant,
contended that the trial court erred in convicting him on the basis of the
testimony of Jose Huntoria, the lone alleged eyewitness, and in not
appreciating his defense of alibi.
The Court of Appeals found no merit in both assigned errors. In upholding
Huntoria's testimony, the appellate court held that:
. . . Huntoria positively identified all the accused, including
the herein accused-appellant, as the assailants of
Peacerrada. (TSN, p. 43, July 27, 1982) The claim that
Huntoria would have difficulty recognizing the assailant at
a distance of 15 to 20 meters is without merit, considering
that Huntoria knew all the accused. (Id., pp. 37-39) If
Huntoria could not say who was hacking and who was
stabbing the deceased, it was only because the assailant
were moving around the victim.
As for the delay in reporting the incident to the authorities,
we think that Huntoria's explanation is satisfactory. He said
1981." Moreover, the sketch 37 he made of the scene is of little help. While
indicated thereon are the alleged various blood stains and their locations
relative to the scene of the crime, there was however no indication as to
their quantity. This is rather unfortunate for the prosecution because,
considering that there are two versions proferred on where the killing was
carried out, the extent of blood stains found would have provided a more
definite clue as to which version is more credible. If, as the version of the
defense puts it, the killing transpired inside the bedroom of the Gonzales
spouses, there would have been more blood stains inside the couple's
bedroom or even on the ground directly under it. And this circumstance
would provide an additional mooring to the claim of attempted rape
asseverated by Fausta. On the other hand, if the prosecution's version that
the killing was committed in the field near the linasan is the truth, then blood
stains in that place would have been more than in any other place.
The same sloppiness characterizes the investigation conducted by the other
authorities. Police Corporal Ben Sazon who claimed that accused Augusto
Gonzales surrendered to him on February 23, 1981 failed to state clearly the
reason for the "surrender." It would even appear that Augusto "surrendered"
just so he could be safe from possible revenge by the victim's kins. Corporal
Sazon likewise admitted that Augusto never mentioned to him the
participation of other persons in the killing of the victim. Finally, without any
evidence on that point, P.C. investigators of the 321st P.C. Company who
likewise conducted an investigation of the killing mentioned in their criminal
complaint four other unnamed persons, aside from the spouses Augusto and
Fausta Gonzales, to have conspired in killing Lloyd Peacerrada.
Now on the medical evidence. Dr. Rojas opined that it is possible that the
sixteen wounds described in the autopsy report were caused by two or more
bladed instruments. Nonetheless, he admitted the possibility that one bladed
instrument might have caused all. Thus, insofar as Dr. Rojas' testimony and
the autopsy report are concerned, Fausta Gonzales' admission that she alone
was responsible for the killing appears not at all too impossible. And then
there is the positive testimony of Dr. Rojas that there were only five wounds
that could be fatal out of the sixteen described in the autopsy report. We
shall discuss more the significance of these wounds later.
It is thus clear from the foregoing that if the conviction of the appellant by
the lower courts is to be sustained, it can only be on the basis of the
testimony of Huntoria, the self-proclaimed eyewitness. Hence, a meticulous
scrutiny of Huntoria's testimony is compelling.
To recollect, Huntoria testified that he clearly saw all the accused, including
the appellant, take turns in hacking and stabbing Lloyd Peacerrada, at
about 8:00 o'clock in the evening, on February 21, 1981, in the field near a
"linasan" while he (Huntoria) stood concealed behind a clump of banana
trees some 15 to 20 meters away from where the crime was being
committed. According to him, he recognized the six accused as the
malefactors because the scene was then illuminated by the moon. He further
stated that the stabbing and hacking took about an hour. But on crossexamination, Huntoria admitted that he could not determine who among the
six accused did the stabbing and/or hacking and what particular weapon was
used by each of them.
ATTY. GATON (defense counsel on crossexamination):
Q And you said that the moon was bright, is it
correct?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And you would like us to understand that you
saw the hacking and the stabbing, at that
distance by the herein accused as identified by
you?
A Yes, sir, because the moon was brightly
shining.
Q If you saw the stabbing and the hacking, will
you please tell this Honorable Court who was
hacking the victim?
A Because they were surrounding Peacerrada
and were in constant movement, I could not
determine who did the hacking.
ATTY. GATON:
The interpretation is not clear.
COURT:
They were doing it rapidly.
A The moving around or the hacking or the
"labu" or "bunu" is rapid. I only saw the rapid
movement of their arms, Your Honor, and I
cannot determine who was hacking and who
was stabbing. But I saw the hacking and the
stabbing blow.
ATTY. GATON:
Q You cannot positively identify before this
Court who really hacked Lloyd Peacerrada?
A Yes sir, I cannot positively tell who did the
hacking.
Q And likewise you cannot positively tell this
Honorable Court who did the stabbing?
A Yes sir, and because of the rapid movements.
Q I noticed in your direct testimony that you
could not even identify the weapons used
because according to you it was just flashing?
A Yes, sir.
(Emphasis supplied)
From his very testimony, Huntoria failed to impute a definite and specific act
committed, or contributed, by the appellant in the killing of Lloyd
Peacerrada.
It also bears stressing that there is nothing in the findings of the trial court
and of the Court of Appeals which would categorize the criminal liability of
the appellant as a principal by direct participation under Article 17,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. Likewise, there is nothing in the
evidence for the prosecution that inculpates him by inducement, under
paragraph 2 of the same Article 17, or by indispensable cooperation under
paragraph 3 thereof. What then was the direct part in the killing did the
appellant perform to support the ultimate punishment imposed by the Court
of Appeals on him?
Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides how criminal liability is incurred.
Art. 4. Criminal liability Criminal liability shall be
incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an
offense against persons or property, were it not for the
hacking and stabbing alleged by Huntoria. And why not him? Is he not after
all the oldest (already sexagenarian at that time) and practically the father of
the five accused? And pursuing this argument to the limits of its logic, it is
possible, nay even probable, that only four, or three, or two of the accused
could have inflicted all the five fatal wounds to the exclusion of two, three, or
four of them. And stretching the logic further, it is possible, nay probable,
that all the fatal wounds, including even all the non-fatal wounds, could have
been dealt by Fausta in rage against the assault on her womanhood and
honor. But more importantly, there being not an iota of evidence that the
appellant caused any of the said five fatal wounds, coupled with the
prosecution's failure to prove the presence of conspiracy beyond reasonable
doubt, the appellant's conviction can not be sustained.
Additionally, Huntoria's credibility as a witness is likewise tarnished by the
fact that he only came out to testify in October 1981, or eight long months
since he allegedly saw the killing on February 21, 1981. While ordinarily the
failure of a witness to report at once to the police authorities the crime he
had witnessed should not be taken against him and should not affect his
credibility, here, the unreasonable delay in Huntoria's coming out engenders
doubt on his veracity.If the silence of coming out an alleged eyewitness for
several weeks renders his credibility doubtful,the more it should be for one
who was mute for eight months. Further, Huntoria's long delay in reveiling
what he allegedly witnessed, has not been satisfactorily explained. His lame
excuse that he feared his life would be endangered is too pat to be believed.
There is no showing that he was threatened by the accused or by anybody.
And if it were true that he feared a possible retaliation from the accused, why
did he finally volunteer to testify considering that except for the spouses
Augusto and Fausta Gonzales who were already under police custody, the
rest of the accused were then still free and around; they were not yet named
in the original information, thus the supposed danger on Huntoria's life would
still be clear and present when he testified.
Moreover, Huntoria is not exactly a disinterested witness as portrayed by the
prosecution. He admitted that he was a tenant of the deceased. In fact, he
stated that one of the principal reasons why he testified was because the
victim was also his landlord.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Now, Mr. Huntoria, why did it take you so
long from the time you saw the stabbing and
hacking of Lloyd Peacerrada when you told
Mrs. Peacerrada about what happened to her
husband?