Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 172370 October 6, 2008
PEOPLE OF TE P!L!PP!NES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FLOREN"A CASTRO #$% CR!STOPER TAL!TA, accused-appellants.
D E C I S I O N
RE&ES, R.T., J.'
TE !R"T#$ c%i&es of pa%%icide and &u%de% a%e on ta%'et in this auto&atic %evie( of the Decision
)
of the Cou%t of
#ppeals *C#+ affi%&in' (ith &odification that of the Re'ional T%ial Cou%t *RTC+ in Malolos, !ulacan. The RTC found
appellant ,lo%enda Cast%o 'uilt- of pa%%icide and &u%de% fo% the death of he% husband and fathe%-in-la(, %espectivel-,
and he% co-appellant Ch%istophe% Talita liable fo% t(o counts of &u%de%, sentencin' the& to suffe% the sup%e&e
penalt- of death.
T(e F#ct)
On Ma- )., )//0, appellant Ch%istophe% Talita cont%acted the se%vices of the victi&s Elpidio and #lf%edo Cast%o,
fathe% and son, fo% the installation of (indo( '%ills at an unspecified location in Santol, !ala'tas, !ulacan. The
Cast%os a'%eed to unde%ta1e the 2ob fo% a conside%ation of P/3.33 pe% s4ua%e feet. The- %eceived inst%uctions to
p%oceed to Santol the ne5t da-, Ma- )0. The- (e%e to loo1 fo% a ce%tain !ett-, (ho (as supposed to sho( the&
(he%e the 2ob (as to be done.
6
#lf%edo and his (elde% 7ai&e Ca%%a8cal did as the- (e%e told. The-, ho(eve%, failed to locate !ett- in Santol. That
sa&e ni'ht, Ch%istophe% %e-e&e%'ed at the Cast%o household in Pandi, !ulacan and voluntee%ed to acco&pan-
the& to the 2ob site the ne5t &o%nin'.
9
On Ma- )/, at a%ound .:33 a.&., appellant Ch%istophe% a%%ived on schedule. Elpidio e5cused hi&self to fetch thei%
se%vice vehicle, an o(ne%-t-pe 2eepne-. #lf%edo, to'ethe% (ith his &othe% $olita de $eon Cast%o, (aited fo% the elde%
Cast%o at the balcon- of thei% ho&e (hile Ch%istophe% and 7ai&e (aited on the st%eet belo(.
;
#s Elpidio a%%ived on boa%d the se%vice 2eepne-, he tu%ned to Ch%istophe% and said <Pare, sandali lang.< e then
inst%ucted #lf%edo and 7ai&e to boa%d the vehicle. 7ai&e (as the fi%st to boa%d and too1 the bac1 seat. #s #lf%edo
(as about to ente% the vehicle=s passen'e% side, Ch%istophe% une5pectedl- d%e( a .90 calibe% %evolve%. e then fi%ed
at #lf%edo t(ice, hittin' hi& in the head. #t that ti&e, #lf%edo and Ch%istophe% (e%e a &e%e a%&s-len'th of each
othe%.
>
Ch%istophe% then (ent a%ound the 2eepne- and t%ained his 'un at Elpidio, shootin' hi& t(ice. Elpidio instantl- fell
do(n. #s #lf%edo la- sp%a(led on the '%ound, Ch%istophe% shot hi& a'ain.
?
7ai&e i&&ediatel- 'ot do(n f%o& the vehicle as the fi%st shot (as fi%ed. e hid fo% cove% at a nea%b- fence.
.
#fte% the shootin', Ch%istophe% stood at the c%i&e scene, (aitin' fo% so&ethin'. # fe( &inutes late%, a &int '%een
Nissan Sent%a a%%ived. In it (e%e th%ee passen'e%s, includin' appellant ,lo%enda, (ho (as seated behind the d%ive%.
The doo% at the passen'e% side of the said ca% (as open. Ch%istophe% boa%ded the ca%, (hich then sped a(a- f%o&
the locus criminis.
0
#lf%edo died instantaneousl- f%o& &assive e5te%nal and int%ac%anial he&o%%ha'e due to &ultiple 'unshot (ounds.
Elpidio (as %ushed to the nea%est hospital (he%e he (as t%eated fo% in2u%ies in the abdo&en and tho%a5. e e5pi%ed
t(o da-s late%.
/
#cco%din' to $olita Cast%o, she incu%%ed P);6,>33.33
)3
fo% the hospitali8ation of Elpidio Cast%o andP6?3,333.33
))
fo%
the (a1e and bu%ial e5penses of the t(o victi&s. o(eve%, onl- P6?6,>63.33 is substantiated b- p%ope% %eceipts.
)6
On Dece&be% )), )//0, appellant ,lo%enda (as indicted fo% pa%%icide and &u%de% fo% the death of he% husband
#lf%edo and fathe%-in-la( Elpidio, %espectivel-. #ppellant Ch%istophe% (as cha%'ed (ith t(o counts of &u%de%. The
t(o sepa%ate a&ended info%&ations a'ainst appellants bea% the follo(in' accusations:
C%i&inal Case No. )30.-M-/0 *Mu%de%+:
That on o% about the )/
th
da- of Ma- )//0 in the &unicipalit- of Pandi, p%ovince of !ulacan, Philippines, and
(ithin the 2u%isdiction of this ono%able Cou%t, the above-na&ed accused, conspi%in', confede%atin' and
&utuall- helpin' one anothe%, a%&ed (ith a 'un and (ith intent to 1ill one Elpidio Cast%o - de $eon, did then
and the%e (ilfull-, unla(full- and feloniousl-, (ith evident p%e&editation and t%eache%-, attac1, assault and
shoot (ith the said 'un said Elpidio Cast%o - de $eon, hittin' the latte% on the diffe%ent pa%ts of his bod-,
the%eb- inflictin' &o%tal (ounds (hich di%ectl- caused his death.
)9
C%i&inal Case No. )30.-M-/0 *Pa%%icide+:
That on o% about the )/
th
da- of Ma- )//0 in the &unicipalit- of Pandi, p%ovince of !ulacan, Philippines, and
(ithin the 2u%isdiction of this ono%able Cou%t, the above-na&ed accused, havin' delibe%atel- planned to 1ill
#lf%edo Cast%o (ith (ho& she (as united in a la(ful (edloc1, conspi%in' and confede%atin' (ith one
anothe%, accused (ho (e%e a%&ed (ith a 'un, did then and the%e (ilfull-, unla(full- and feloniousl-, (ith
t%eache%- and evident p%e&editation, attac1, assault and shot (ith said 'un said #lf%edo Cast%o, hittin' hi&
in the head and chest the%eb- inflictin' &o%tal (ounds (hich di%ectl- caused his death.
);
#t thei% a%%ai'n&ent, both appellants ente%ed a ne'ative plea. T%ial on the &e%its ensued.
The evidence fo% the People, (hich po%t%a-ed the fo%e'oin' facts, (as p%incipall- supplied b- @odof%edo del
Rosa%io, Ch%istophe% del Rosa%io, ,%ancisco Do&in'o, 7ai&e Ca%%a8cal, Rupe%to C%u8 and $olita de $eon Cast%o,
(ife to Elpidio and &othe% to #lf%edo.
It (as fu%the% %evealed that appellant ,lo%enda and the victi& #lf%edo had been sepa%ated since ,eb%ua%- )//0.
,lo%enda also had a fallin'-out (ith he% fathe%-in-la( ove% an unpaid debt. Elpidio li1e(ise %esented ,lo%enda=s bad
c%edit standin' (hich tended to b%in' sha&e to the Cast%o na&e.
)>
,lo%enda did not attend the five-da- (a1e of he% husband and fathe%-in-la(. On the date of the bu%ial, ho(eve%, she
(as seen filin' a clai& fo% death benefits befo%e the !u%eau of Custo&s, (he%e he% husband (as p%eviousl-
e&plo-ed.
"pon the othe% hand, denial and alibi (e%e appellants= &ain e5culpatin' line. ,o% he% pa%t, appellant ,lo%enda
na%%ated that she and the victi& #lf%edo (e%e &a%%ied on ,eb%ua%- )9, )//9. The- established a con2u'al abode in
Pandi, !ulacan, ad2acent to that of he% pa%ents-in-la(. #lf%edo (as a fo%&e% e&plo-ee of the !u%eau of Custo&s. e
(as also a pa%t-ti&e public (o%1s cont%acto%.
)?
,lo%enda testified that the fi%st five -ea%s of he% &a%%ia'e (ith #lf%edo (e%e blissful, althou'h the- failed to conceive
a child of thei% o(n. So&eti&e in ,eb%ua%-, )//0, she decided to leave thei% ho&e in Pandi afte% she and #lf%edo
had a heated a%'u&ent. She %efused to e5tend a loan a&ountin' to P903,333.33 to he% b%othe%-in-la(. She &oved
to Ma1ati Cit- and sta-ed (ith the fa&il- of he% son f%o& a p%evious &a%%ia'e.
).
She denied that she (as in Pandi, !ulacan the da- he% husband #lf%edo and fathe%-in-la( Elpidio (e%e shot to
death. #cco%din' to ,lo%enda, she could not have left thei% Ma1ati ho&e because at that ti&e, he% %i'ht le' (as
s(ollen due to diabetes-induced boils. She li1e(ise had no Nissan Sent%a ca%. #nent he% failu%e to visit the (a1e of
he% husband, she inti&ated that it (as due to the p%oddin' of a ce%tain Ma-o% #nd%es of Pandi. The &a-o% info%&ed
he% that she (as a suspect in the t(in 1illin's.
)0
#ppellant Ch%istophe% denied that he 1ne( appellant ,lo%enda. e testified that he (as in Ta'ui' Cit- and not in
Pandi, !ulacan, on the da- of the incident. e li1e(ise denied cont%actin' the se%vices of the Cast%os fo% the
installation of (indo( '%ills. e 1ne( of no %eason (h- the p%osecution (itnesses (ould point to hi& as the 'un&an
in the shootin' of #lf%edo and Elpidio Cast%o. #t p%esent, he is se%vin' sentence at the Ne( !ilibid P%isons in
Muntinlupa Cit- fo% a diffe%ent &u%de% conviction b- a Pa%aAa4ue cou%t.
)/
RTC #$% CA "*)+o)*t*o$)
On #u'ust )?, 6336, the t%ial cou%t handed do(n a 2ud'&ent of conviction, disposin' as follo(s:
BERE,ORE, the fo%e'oin' conside%ed, this Cou%t he%eb- finds accused ,lo%enda Cast%o @"I$TC be-ond
%easonable doubt of the c%i&es of Mu%de% in C%i&. Case No. )30.-M-/0 and Pa%%icide in C%i&. Case No.
)300-M-/0, and accused Ch%istophe% Talita @"I$TC be-ond %easonable doubt of t(o counts of Mu%de% fo%
C%i&. Cases Nos. )30. and )300-M-/0, and sentences each of the& to suffe% the penalt- of DE#T fo%
each count and to pa- p%ivate co&plainant $olita de $eon Cast%o the a&ounts of P)>3,333.33 *P.>,333.33+
as civil inde&nities fo% the death of Elpidio Cast%o and #lf%edo Cast%o, P)33,333.33 *P>3,333.33 each+ as
&o%al da&a'es, P>3,333.33 *P6>,333.33 each+ as e5e&pla%- da&a'es, P;36,>33 as actual da&a'es, and
the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
63
Pu%suant to People v. Mateo,
6)
(hich &odified Rules )66, )6; and )6> of the 6333 Rules of C%i&inal P%ocedu%e
insofa% as the- p%ovide fo% di%ect appeals f%o& the RTC to this Cou%t in cases in (hich the penalt- i&posed b- the
t%ial cou%t is death, reclusion perpetua o% life i&p%ison&ent, this case (as %efe%%ed to the C# fo% inte%&ediate %evie(.
On Ma%ch )?, 633?, the C# %ende%ed 2ud'&ent affi%&in' (ith &odification that of the RTC. The fallo of the said
decision %eads:
BERE,ORE, in vie( of the fo%e'oin', the decision dated #u'ust )?, 6336 of the Re'ional T%ial Cou%t of
Malolos, !ulacan, !%anch .0, in C%i&inal Case Nos. )30.-M-/0 and )300-M-/0, convictin' accused-
appellant ,$OREND# #. C#STRO of &u%de% and pa%%icide, and accused-appellant CRISTOPER @.
T#$IT#, of t(o counts of &u%de%, and sentencin' the& to suffe% the penalt- of DE#T in both cases, is
he%eb- #,,IRMED (ith the MODI,IC#TION that accused-appellants a%e o%de%ed:
*)+ in C%i&inal Case Nos. )30.-M-/0 and )300-M-/0, to pa- solida%il- *in solidu&+ the hei%s of the victi&s
Elpidio Cast%o and #lf%edo Cast%o the a&ount of P6?;,>63.33 in actual da&a'esD
*6+ in C%i&inal Case No. )30.-M-/0, to pa- solida%il- *in solidu&+ the hei%s of the victi& Elpidio Cast%o the
a&ounts of P>3,333.33 as civil inde&nit-, P6>,333.33 as e5e&pla%- da&a'es and P>3,333.33 as &o%al
da&a'esD and
*9+ in C%i&inal Case No. )300-M-/0, to pa- solida%il- *in solidu&+ the hei%s of the victi& #lf%edo Cast%o the
a&ounts of P>3,333.33 as civil inde&nit-, P6>,333.33 as e5e&pla%- da&a'es and P>3,333.33 as &o%al
da&a'es.
SO ORDERED.
66
ence, this %evie(.
!)),e)
On 7une )9, 633?, the Cou%t %esolved to %e4ui%e the pa%ties to file thei% %espective supple&ental b%iefs, if the- so
desi%ed. In a Manifestation dated 7ul- >, 633?, the Office of the Solicito% @ene%al *OS@+, %ep%esentin' the People,
info%&ed the Cou%t that it (ould no lon'e% file a supple&ental b%iefD it (as adoptin' its &ain b%ief on %eco%d.
#ppellants li1e(ise o&itted to sub&it a supple&ental b%ief.
In the &ain, appellants i&pute to the t%ial cou%t t(in e%%o%s, viz.:
I.
TE PROSEC"TION ,#I$ED TO PROEE TE @"I$T O, TE #CC"SED-#PPE$$#NTS !ECOND
RE#SON#!$E DO"!TD
II.
TE ONOR#!$E CO"RT ERRED IN O$DIN@ T#T #CC"SED, ,$OREND# C#STRO, CONSPIRED
BIT ER CO-#CC"SED, CRISTOPER T#$IT#, IN #$$E@ED$C FI$$IN@ E$PIDIO C#STRO #ND
#$,REDO C#STRO. *"nde%sco%in' supplied+
69
O,r R,-*$.
!. Proo/ o/ .,*-t be0o$% re#)o$#b-e %o,bt.
#. #lle'ed cont%adiction vis-G-vis positive testi&onies
In &ini&i8in' the sufficienc- of the p%oof of thei% 'uilt, both appellants assail the cont%adicto%- testi&onies and
c%edibilit- of p%osecution (itnesses. #cco%din' to the&, the%e is conflict as to the position of #lf%edo p%io% to and at
the ti&e of the shootin'D as to the ent%- and e5it points of the bullets fi%edD as to (hen (itness 7ai&e sta%ted to %un
a(a-D and as to the o%i'in, position, &odel and colo% of the 'et-a(a- vehicle. The- ha%p on these inconsistencies,
clai&in' that these do not %efe% &e%el- to t%ivial &atte%s but st%i1e at the ve%- &anne% of the co&&ission of the
c%i&e.
Be have consistentl- %uled that not all inconsistencies in the (itnesses= testi&on- affect thei% c%edibilit-.
Inconsistencies on &ino% details and collate%al &atte%s do not affect the substance of thei% decla%ation, thei% ve%acit-,
o% the (ei'ht of thei% testi&onies.
6;
Thus, althou'h the%e &a- be inconsistencies on the testi&onies of (itnesses on
&ino% details, the- do not i&pai% c%edibilit- (he%e the%e is consistenc- in %elatin' the p%incipal occu%%ence and
positive identification of the assailants.
6>
In People v. Sabalones,
6?
it (as alle'ed that the p%osecution account had inconsistencies %elatin' to the nu&be% of
shots hea%d and the inte%val bet(een the 'unshots and the victi&s= positions (hen the- (e%e 1illed. The Cou%t
dis&issed those alle'ations as <&ino% and inconse4uential fla(s< (hich st%en'then, and %athe% than i&pai%ed, the
c%edibilit- of said e-e(itnesses. In the sa&e b%eath, the Cou%t held then that <such ha%&less e%%o%s a%e indicative of
t%uth, not falsehood,<
6.
and did not cast se%ious doubt on the ve%acit- and %eliabilit- of the testi&on- of co&plainant.
#lso, in People v. Gonzales,
60
the Cou%t held that testi&onial disc%epancies could be caused b- the natu%al
fic1leness of &e&o%- (hich tends to st%en'then %athe% than (ea1en c%edibilit- as the- e%ase an- suspicion of
%ehea%sed testi&on-.
Be hold that the cited inconsistencies %efe% to t%ivial &atte%s and a%e insufficient to dest%o- c%edibilit-. The
testi&onies of the (itnesses fo% the People placed appellants at the locus criminis. Mo%e i&po%tantl-, the (itnesses
steadfastl- %elated the p%incipal occu%%ence and have consistentl- and inva%iabl- identified appellants as the
pe%pet%ato%s of the '%ueso&e 1illin's.
,o% instance, at the bail hea%in' fo% appellant ,lo%enda, (he%e Ch%istophe% (as absent, @odof%edo del Rosa%io
testified:
P%os. Santia'o:
H: If this assailant, the one (ho shot Elpidio and #lf%edo, is no( in Cou%t, (ould -ou be able to %eco'ni8e
hi& a'ainI
#: &e), S*r.
H: Bill -ou please point to hi& if he is no( in Cou%tI
#: e is $ot he%e.
6/
5 5 5 5
P%os. Santia'o:
H: This ,lo%enda, if she is no( in Cou%t, (ould -ou be able to identif- he%I
#: Ces, Si%.
H: Bill -ou please point to he% if she is no( in Cou%tI
#: She is the one. *Bitness pointin' 5 5 5+
H: Bill -ou please 'o do(n and pat he% shoulde%I
#: *Bitness pattin' the shoulde% of the pe%son, (ho, (hen as1ed, ans(e%ed to the na&e ,lo%enda
Cast%o+.
H: Do -ou 1no( ,lo%enda Cast%oI
#: Ces, Si%.
H: Bh- do -ou 1no( he%I
#: She is the (ife of #lf%edo.
H: The one shot b- the assailantI
#: Ces, Si%.
H: #nd since (hen have -ou 1no(n ,lo%enda Cast%oI
#: ,o% a lon' ti&e because she %esided in ou% place fo% a lon' ti&e also.
H: $et us 'o bac1 to -ou% s1etch, (hat did the ca% do (hen it stops *sic+ f%o& this placeI
#: The ca% is *sic+ app%oachin' the co%ne% nea% the 'un&an.
H: Bhe%e did the ca% stopI
#: The ca% stop *sic+ at the &iddle nea% a co%ne%.
H: Bhen the ca% stopped at the &iddle of this place, (hat did -ou see o% noticeI
#: The (o&an is *sic+ pointin' to so&eone.
H: Cou a%e %efe%%in' to ,lo%enda Cast%oI
#: Ces, Si%.
H: To(a%ds (hat di%ection (as the (o&an pointin'I
#: To(a%ds the 'un&an.
93
,o% he% pa%t, p%ivate co&plainant $olita Cast%o pa%tl- testified:
H: #fte% the shootin' incident, (hat happened ne5tI
#: Bhen &- husband and son fell do(n, I a& about to app%oach the& and so the 'un&an and I &et.
H: Bhen &eetin' the 'un&an, (hat happened ne5tI
#: e po1ed a 'un at &e that is (h- I %etu%ned.
H: To -ou% houseI
#: Ces, Si%.
H: Bhat did -ou do in -ou% houseI
#: The 'un&an follo(ed &e but he stopped at the 'ate. I p%oceeded to the te%%ace to call to the
&unicipal buildin' to as1 fo% help.
5 5 5 5
H: #fte% the lapse of one &inute, (hat happened ne5tI
#: # ca% a%%ived, the f%ont doo% (as al%ead- opened and the 'un&an boa%ded the said ca%.
H: Bhat 1ind of ca% a%%ivedI
#: Colo% &int '%een.
H: Be%e -ou able to %eco'ni8e the d%ive% of the 2eep *sic+I
#: I did not %eco'ni8e the d%ive% because &- focus (as on the passen'e%s.
H: #side f%o& the d%ive%, the%e a%e othe%s (ho a%e occupants of the ca%I
#: Ces, Si%.
H: BhoI
#: M0 %#,.(ter1*$1-#2, F-ore$%#.
H: If ,lo%enda Cast%o is no( in Cou%t, (ould -ou be able to %eco'ni8e hi& *sic+ a'ainI
#: Ces, Si%.
H: Bill -ou please point to he%I
#: *Bitness pointin' to the pe%son (ho, (hen as1ed, ans(e%ed the na&e of ,lo%enda Cast%o+.
9)
#d&ittedl-, an accused in a c%i&inal case &a- onl- be convicted if his o% he% 'uilt is established be-ond %easonable
doubt. !ut p%oof be-ond %easonable doubt %e4ui%es onl- a &o%al ce%taint- o% that de'%ee of p%oof (hich p%oduces
conviction in an unp%e2udiced &indD it does not de&and absolute ce%taint- and the e5clusion of all possibilit- of
e%%o%.
96
#fte% all, Be do not e5pect (itnesses to 'ive an <e%%o%-f%ee testi&on-.< Hindi tayo umaasa na ang mga
saksi ay makapagsasalaysay nang walang anumang kamalian.
!. C%edibilit- of the (itnesses fo% the People.
"pon a %evie( of the enti%e %eco%ds, the Cou%t finds no co'ent %eason to depa%t f%o& the findin's and conclusions
%eached b- both the t%ial and the appellate cou%ts.
On this point, the t%ial cou%t aptl- obse%ved:
!utt%essin' the above findin's of the Cou%t a%e the c%edible, consistent, st%ai'htfo%(a%d and cate'o%ical
testi&onies of p%osecution (itnesses, pa%ticula%l- @odof%edo del Rosa%io, ,%ancisco Do&in'o, $olita Cast%o,
Rupe%to C%u8, Co%a8on del Rosa%io, and 7ai&e Ca%%a8cal, as suppo%ted b- the testi&onies of the t(o
&edico-le'al office%s, SPO; Rodante Evan'elista and N!I #'ent Se%afin @il.
#ll thei% testi&onies, as (ell as those of the %ep%esentatives of the !u%eau of Custo&s, if (oven to'ethe% and
ta1en in the li'ht of the suppo%tin' docu&enta%- e5hibits point to nothin' but the clea% and une4uivocal 'uilt
of accused ,lo%enda Cast%o and Ch%istophe% Talita.
That so&e of the p%osecution (itnesses a%e %elatives of the victi& does not affect thei% c%edibilit-.
!lood o% con2u'al %elationship bet(een a (itness and the victi& does not pe% se i&pai% the c%edibilit- of the
(itness - on the cont%a%-, %elationship itself could st%en'then c%edibilit- in a pa%ticula% case, fo% it is unnatu%al
fo% an a''%ieved %elative to falsel- accuse so&eone othe% than the actual culp%it. *People v. Rendoque, 966
SCR# ?66+.
P%ivate co&plainant $olita Cast%o, (ho he%self (itnessed the incident, testified cate'o%icall- on eve%- detail
of it. #s %uled: The testi&on- of the (ido( of the victi& is fa% &o%e c%edit-(o%th- than not because of he%
natu%al inte%est to b%in' to 2ustice the %eal pe%pet%ato%s. *People v. Repollo, 996 SCR# 9.>+.
The p%osecution li1e(ise sho(ed be-ond doubt the identities of he%ein t(o accused. E-e(itnesses
@odof%edo del Rosa%io, ,%ancisco Do&in'o, $olita Cast%o, Co%a8on del Rosa%io, Rupe%to C%u8 and 7ai&e
Ca%%a8cal positivel- identified accused ,lo%enda Cast%o as the one the- sa( inside the 'et-a(a- ca%.
Bitnesses $olita Cast%o and 7ai&e Ca%%a8cal, ho(eve%, pointed to accused Talita as the assailant.
The Cou%t finds no %eason to doubt the testi&onies of afo%esaid (itnesses on thei% identification of he%ein
t(o accused. The incident happened at a%ound .:33 in the &o%nin' alon' the %oad of E. Rod%i'ue8 St.,
Poblacion, Pandi, !ulacan.
Bhe%e conditions of visibilit- a%e favo%able and the (itnesses did not appea% to be biased a'ainst the
accused, thei% asse%tions as to the identit- of the &alefacto%s should no%&all- be accepted. *People v. Geral,
999 SCR# ;>9+
#ll of the e-e(itnesses 1ne( both the victi&s and accused Cast%o even befo%e the sub2ect incident.
Bhen the p%osecution e-e(itnesses (e%e fa&ilia% (ith both victi& and accused, and (he%e the locus
criminisaffo%ded 'ood visibilit-, and (he%e no i&p%ope% &otive can be att%ibuted to the& fo% testif-in' a'ainst
the accused, then thei% ve%sion of the sto%- dese%ves &uch (ei'ht. *People v. Tolibas, 96? SCR# ;>9+.
Mo%eove%, on these p%osecution (itnesses - f%o& the e-e(itnesses, to the police investi'ato%, to the N!I
a'ent, and the !u%eau of Custo&s e&plo-ees, not to &ention the t(o &edico-le'al office%s - no i&p%ope%
&otive can be i&puted.
99
In the sa&e vein, the C# found:
The%e is li1e(ise no basis to doubt the positive identification of accused-appellants b- the p%osecution
e-e(itnesses.
Bitnesses @odof%edo Del Rosa%io, Ch%istophe% del Rosa%io and Rupe%to C%u8 (e%e %esidents of Poblacion,
Pandi, !ulacan (he%e accused-appellant ,lo%enda Cast%o and he% husband #lf%edo Cast%o %esided befo%e
the- sepa%atedD (itness ,%ancisco Do&in'o is a 2eepne- d%ive% (ho %e'ula%l- passes b- at Poblacion, Pandi,
!ulacan and has 1no(n accused-appellant ,lo%enda Cast%o=s husband #lf%edo Cast%o since thei% childhood
da-s in Silin' !ata, Pandi, !ulacanD and (itness $olita Cast%o is accused-appellant=s &othe%-in-la( (hile
(itness 7ai&e Ca%ascal (o%1s as (elde% in thei% i%on (o%1s business. In vie( of thei% fa&ilia%it- (ith
accused-appellant ,lo%enda Cast%o, these (itnesses could not have been &ista1en as to the identit- of the
(o&an seated at the bac1 seat of the 'un&an=s 'et a(a- vehicles. Said vehicle had li'htl- tinted (indo(s
and (as t%avelin' at a slo( pace, p%ovidin' said e-e(itnesses (ith a 'ood loo1 at its occupants.
On the othe% hand, the assailant accused-appellant Ch%istophe% Talita (as positivel- identified b- (itnesses
$olita Cast%o and 7ai&e Ca%ascal as the sa&e pe%son (ho (as at the %esidence of the victi& #lf%edo Cast%o
on Ma- )., )//0 and p%etended to be a custo&e% of said victi&=s i%on (o%1s business. Said assailant shot
his victi&s in b%oad da-li'ht and in full vie( of these t(o *6+ (itnesses and (itnesses @odof%edo del
Rosa%io, Ch%istophe% del Rosa%io and Rupe%to C%u8, thus, thei% identification of accused-appellant
Ch%istophe% Talita can be t%usted.
5 5 5 5
That (itnesses $olita Cast%o and Ch%istophe% del Rosa%io a%e %elatives of the victi&s is no %eason to
deni'%ate thei% testi&onies, fo% it is established %ule that the &e%e fact that the (itness is a %elative of a victi&
is not a valid o% sufficient '%ound to dis%e'a%d the fo%&e%=s testi&on- no% does it %ende% the sa&e less (o%th-
of c%edit.
,inall-, the testi&onies of the abovena&ed p%osecution e-e(itnesses, as co%%obo%ated b- the evidence
fu%nished b- D%. !enito Caballe%o (ho conducted the post &o%te& e5a&inations on the bodies of victi&s
Elpidio and #lf%edo Cast%o, and D%. 7oselito Mendo8a, (ho pe%fo%&ed the e&e%'enc- su%'e%- ope%ation on
Elpidio Cast%o befo%e he eventuall- died, confi%& that the fatal (ounds sustained b- the victi&s could
definitel- have been inflicted b- the (eapon the- have seen held b- accused-appellant Ch%istophe% Talita
du%in' the co&&ission of the c%i&e.
5 5 5 5
,u%the%&o%e, accused-appellants ave% that the testi&onies of p%osecution (itnesses a%e inconsistent (ith
the ent%ies in the police blotte%, i.e., the colo% of the 'un&an=s 'et a(a- ca% (as (hite, and not '%een as
testified to b- the p%osecution e-e(itnessesD the non-identification of the 'un&an (ho (as &e%el- alle'ed to
be accused-appellant ,lo%enda Cast%o=s fo%&e% bod-'ua%dD and no &ention about the p%esence of accused-
appellant ,lo%enda Cast%o du%in' the incident. Suffice it to state, ho(eve%, that ent%ies in a police blotte%
should not be 'iven si'nificance o% p%obative value as the- do not constitute conclusive p%oof of the t%uth
the%eof. # police blotte%, li1e an- othe% e5t%a2udicial state&ent, cannot p%evail ove% testi&on- in an open
cou%t. The- a%e not 'iven undue si'nificance o% p%obative value as the- a%e not evidence of the t%uth of thei%
contents but &e%el- of the fact that the- (e%e %eco%ded.
Be thus 'ive full c%edence to the app%eciation of testi&onial evidence b- the t%ial cou%t. The oft-%epeated
p%inciple is that (he%e the c%edibilit- of a (itness is an issue, the established %ule is that '%eat %espect is
acco%ded to the evaluation of the c%edibilit- of (itnesses b- the t%ial cou%t because of its uni4ue oppo%tunit-
to obse%ve the (itnesses fi%sthand and note thei% de&eano%, conduct and attitude unde% '%illin'
e5a&ination.
9;
This Cou%t places '%eat (ei'ht on the factual findin's of the t%ial 2ud'e. e conducted the t%ial and hea%d the
testi&onies of the (itnesses. e pe%sonall- obse%ved thei% conduct, de&eano% and depo%t&ent (hile %espondin' to
the 4uestions p%opounded b- both the p%osecuto% and defense counsel. e had the oppo%tunit- to pose cla%ificato%-
4uestions to the pa%ties. Te%sel- put, (hen a t%ial 2ud'e &a1es his findin's as to the issue of c%edibilit-, such findin's
bea% '%eat (ei'ht, at ti&es even finalit-, on the appellate cou%t.
9>
In People v. Quijada,
9?
the Cou%t, spea1in' th%ou'h then Chief 7ustice ila%io Davide, aptl- held:
5 5 5 Settled is the %ule that the factual findin's of the t%ial cou%t, especiall- on the c%edibilit- of (itnesses,
a%e acco%ded '%eat (ei'ht and %espect. ,o%, the t%ial cou%t has the advanta'e of obse%vin' the (itnesses
th%ou'h the diffe%ent indicato%s of t%uthfulness o% falsehood, such as the an'%- flush of an insisted asse%tion
o% the sudden pallo% of a discove%ed lie o% the t%e&ulous &utte% of a %eluctant ans(e% o% the fo%th%i'ht tone of
a %ead- %epl-D o% the fu%tive 'lance, the blush of conscious sha&e, the hesitation, the since%e o% the flippant
o% snee%in' tone, the heat, the cal&ness, the -a(n, the si'h, the cando% o% lac1 of it, the scant o% full
%eali8ation of the sole&nit- of an oath, the ca%%ia'e and &ien. 5 5 5
9.
Ou% p%onounce&ent in People v. Sancez
90
is fu%the% illu&inatin' on this point:
The &atte% of assi'nin' values to decla%ations on the (itness stand is best and &ost co&petentl- pe%fo%&ed
b- the t%ial 2ud'e (ho had the un&atched oppo%tunit- to obse%ve the (itnesses and to assess thei% c%edibilit-
b- the va%ious indicia available but not %eflected in the %eco%d. The de&eano% of the pe%son on the stand can
d%a( the line bet(een fact and fanc-. The fo%th%i'ht ans(e% o% the hesitant pause, the 4uive%in' voice o% the
an'%- tone, the fluste%ed loo1 o% the since%e 'a8e, the &odest blush o% the 'uilt- blanch - these can %eveal if
the (itness is tellin' the t%uth o% l-in' in his teeth.
9/
!!. Proo/ o/ co$)+*r#c0 3er),) %e$*#- #$% #-*b*
!oth appellants %elied on the defenses of denial and alibi. It bea%s st%essin' that positive identification b- c%edible
(itnesses of the accused as the pe%pet%ato% of the c%i&e de&olishes the alibi - the &uch abused sanctua%- of
felons.
;3
In the case unde% %evie(, appellant ,lo%enda (as positivel- identified b- 1e- p%osecution (itnesses as one
of the passen'e%s of the 'et-a(a- vehicle used b- the assailant Ch%istophe%. The (itnesses fo% the People a%e
sufficientl- and ade4uatel- fa&ilia% (ith ,lo%enda. The (itnesses fo% the p%osecution (e%e eithe% appellant=s
nei'hbo%s o% %elated to he% b- affinit-. #s fo% appellant Ch%istophe%, the evidence pointin' to hi& as the t%i''e%&an
that fell both #lf%edo and Elpidio is ove%(hel&in'.
Mo%eove%, appellants failed to p%esent co%%obo%atin' evidence to butt%ess thei% %espective alibi. Othe% than thei% ba%e
alle'ations, no (itness (as int%oduced b- the defense to co%%obo%ate thei% %espective accounts and cont%ove%t the
People=s ve%sion of the incident placin' the& at the scene of the c%i&e. Ti&e and a'ain, the Cou%t has held that the
defense of alibi is inhe%entl- (ea1 especiall- (hen (antin' in &ate%ial co%%obo%ation.
;)
Cate'o%ical decla%ations of
(itnesses fo% the p%osecution of the details of the c%i&e a%e &o%e c%edible than the unco%%obo%ated alibi inte%posed
b- accused.
;6
Be 4uote (ith app%oval the C#=s elucidation alon' this line:
"nsubstantiated b- clea% and convincin' p%oofs, accused-appellants= %espective denials necessa%il- fail. #n
int%insicall- (ea1 defense, denial &ust be butt%essed b- st%on' evidence of non-culpabilit- in o%de% to &e%it
c%edibilit-. Me%e denial, 2ust li1e alibi, is a self-se%vin' ne'ative evidence (hich cannot be acco%ded '%eate%
evidentia%- (ei'ht than the decla%ation of c%edible (itnesses (ho testif- on affi%&ative &atte%s.
Denial and alibi a%e (ea1 defenses (hich a%e unavailin' in the face of positive identification.
#t an- %ate, it (as fo% the t%ial 2ud'e, usin' his sound disc%etion and his obse%vations at the t%ial, to dete%&ine
(ho& to believe a&on' the (itnesses of the pa%ties (ho 'ave conflictin' testi&onies on the (he%eabouts of
accused-appellants in the unhol- &o%nin' of Ma- )/, )//0. #s ea%lie% said, findin's of fact and assess&ent
of c%edibilit- of (itnesses, a%e &atte%s (hich a%e best left to the t%ial cou%t because of its uni4ue position of
havin' obse%ved that elusive and inco&&unicable evidence of the (itnesses= behavio% on the stand (hile
testif-in', (hich oppo%tunit- is denied to the appellate cou%ts. Thus, unless the t%ial cou%t has plainl-
ove%loo1ed ce%tain facts of substance and value (hich, if conside%ed, &i'ht affect the %esult of the case, his
assess&ent of the c%edibilit- of (itnesses (ill be %espected b- the appellate cou%t. Be have &eticulousl-
e5a&ined the %eco%ds, and found that the t%ial cou%t=s decision has conside%ed eve%- &ate%ial fact and piece
of evidence in this case.
;9
In fine, the defense of denial and alibi is an issue of fact that hin'es on the c%edibilit- of (itnesses. #s adve%ted to
ea%lie%, Be find the dete%&ination b- the t%ial and the appellate cou%ts on the &atte% of the c%edibilit- of the
p%osecution (itnesses to be clea%l- consistent. Thus, it &ust be accepted.
!!!. Cr*4e) co44*tte%
#ll told, the Cou%t is convinced that the evidence fo% the People p%oved be-ond %easonable doubt that appellant
,lo%enda is 'uilt- of pa%%icide fo% the 1illin' of he% husband #lf%edo and fo% &u%de% fo% the death of he% fathe%-in-la(
Elpidio. The c%i&e of pa%%icide, defined in #%ticle 6;? of the Revised Penal Code, states:
#%t. 6;?. Parricide. - #n- pe%son (ho shall 1ill his fathe%, &othe%, o% child, (hethe% le'iti&ate o% ille'iti&ate,
o% an- of his ascendants, o% descendants, o% his spouse, shall be 'uilt- of pa%%icide and shall be punished b-
the penalt- of reclusion perpetua to death.
Pa%%icide is co&&itted (hen: *)+ a pe%son is 1illedD *6+ the deceased is 1illed b- the accusedD *9+ the deceased is the
fathe%, &othe%, o% child, (hethe% le'iti&ate o% ille'iti&ate, o% a le'iti&ate othe% ascendant o% othe% descendant, o% the
le'iti&ate spouse of accused.
;;
The ele&ents of &u%de%, penali8ed unde% #%ticle 6;0 of the Revised Penal Code, a%e: *)+ a pe%son is 1illedD *6+ the
deceased is 1illed b- accusedD *9+ the 1illin' is attended b- an- of the 4ualif-in' ci%cu&stances &entioned in #%ticle
6;0 of the Revised Penal CodeD and *;+ the 1illin' is neithe% pa%%icide no% infanticide.
;>
The %eco%ds bea% out that appellant ,lo%enda conspi%ed and confede%ated (ith he% co-appellant Ch%istophe% in
ca%%-in' out the b%utal 1illin' of #lf%edo and Elpidio. Bhile Ch%istophe% acted as the 'un&an, ,lo%enda so(ed the
seeds of violence b- &aste%&indin' the %ep%ehensible deed. "ndeniabl-, thei% conce%ted actions sho(ed co&&unit-
of pu%pose and desi'n that fo%&ed a chain of evidence that established conspi%ac- to co&&it pa%%icide and &u%de%.
The Cou%t, (o2e3er, (as %ecentl- info%&ed
;?
that appellant F-ore$%# C#)tro %*e% o$ Febr,#r0 15, 2008 (hile
unde% the custod- of the !u%eau of Co%%ections in Muntinlupa Cit-. Conside%in' that said appellant died befo%e he%
conviction fo% pa%%icide and &u%de% attained finalit-, he% c%i&inal as (ell as civil liabilities a%e e5tin'uished.
;.
Ee%il-, the C# sentencin' needs &odification (ith %espect to appellant ,lo%enda.
Pro+er +e$#-t0
Since the 1illin's (e%e co&&itted in )//0, the t%ial cou%t as (ell as the C# (e%e co%%ect in i&posin' upon appellant
Ch%istophe% the sup%e&e penalt- of death. In vie(, ho(eve%, of the passa'e and effectivit- of Republic #ct *R.#.+
No. 6356
;0
on 7une 6;, 633?, p%osc%ibin' the i&position of the capital punish&ent,
;/
the p%ope% i&posable penalt- on
appellant is reclusion perpetua, (ithout eli'ibilit- fo% pa%ole, in line (ith Sections 6 and 9 of the said la(.
Sec. 6. In lieu of the death penalt-, the follo(in' shall be i&posed:
a. the penalt- of reclusion perpetua, (hen the la( violated &a1es use of the no&enclatu%e of the
penalties of the Revised Penal CodeD o%
b. the penalt- of life i&p%ison&ent, (hen the la( violated does not &a1e use of the no&enclatu%e of
the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
Sec. 9. Pe%sons convicted of offenses punished (ith reclusion perpetua o% (hose sentences (ill be %educed
to %eclusion pe%petua b- %eason of this #ct, shall not be eli'ible fo% pa%ole unde% #ct No. ;)39, othe%(ise
1no(n as the Indete%&inate Sentence $a(, as a&ended. *"nde%sco%in' supplied+
The applicabilit- of R.#. No. /9;? is undeniable. In c%i&inal la(, it is a5io&atic that favorabilia sunt amplianda
adiosa restrigenda, penal la(s (hich a%e favo%able to the accused a%e 'iven %et%oactive effect.
>3
Ang mga batas sa
krimen na pabor sa nasasakdal ay binibigyan ng balik-bisa.
The C# disposition on civil liabilities i&posed on appellant Ch%istophe% in favo% of the hei%s of the victi&s needs
cla%ification. Onl- the a&ount of P6?6,>63.33 *not P6?;,>63.33+ (as substantiated b- p%ope% %eceipts. ence, the
%eduction in the a(a%d of the da&a'es is in o%de%.
#nent the C# a(a%ds of civil inde&nit- of P>3,333.33, &o%al da&a'es of P>3,333.33, and e5e&pla%- da&a'es
ofP6>,333.33 in e#c( case, the- a%e in acco%d (ith cu%%ent 2u%isp%udence.
In Malana v. People,
>)
Be convicted the accused of &u%de% and o%de%ed hi& to pa- the victi& the a&ounts
ofP>3,333.33 as civil inde&nit- and anothe% P>3,333.33 b- (a- of &o%al da&a'es. The sa&e civil inde&nit- and
&o%al da&a'es (e%e a(a%ded b- the Cou%t to the hei%s of the &u%de%ed victi&s in People v. Segobre,
>6
People v.
!usa,
>9
and in People v. Piliin.
>;
#s to e5e&pla%- da&a'es, the victi&s o% the hei%s a%e li1e(ise entitled to e5e&pla%- da&a'es if a''%avatin'
ci%cu&stances, (hethe% 4ualif-in' o% 'ene%ic, a%e p%esent. In the case unde% %evie(, t%eache%- and evident
p%e&editation (e%e clea%l- established. Ee%il-, an a(a%d of P6>,333.33 as e5e&pla%- da&a'es is 2ustified. "nde%
#%ticle 6693 of the Ne( Civil Code, e5e&pla%- da&a'es a%e a(a%ded to se%ve as a dete%%ent to se%ious
(%on'doin's, as vindication of undue suffe%in' and (anton invasion of the %i'hts of an in2u%ed pe%son, and as
punish&ent fo% those 'uilt- of out%a'eous conduct.
>>
7EREFORE, the Decision of the Cou%t of #ppeals is AFF!RME" 7!T MO"!F!CAT!ON as follo(s:
*)+ The cases a'ainst appellant ,lo%enda Cast%o a%e dis&issed, as he% c%i&inal and civil liabilities
a%eE8T!NGU!SE" b- %eason of he% deathD
*6+ #ppellant Ch%istophe% Talita is sentenced to reclusion perpetua (ithout eli'ibilit- fo% pa%ole. e is also o%de%ed to
pa- P>3,333 as civil inde&nit-, P>3,333 as &o%al da&a'es, and P6>,333 as e5e&pla%- da&a'es to each set of
hei%s of Elpidio Cast%o and #lf%edo Cast%o.
SO OR"ERE".
RUBEN T. RE&ES
#ssociate 7ustice
7E CONCUR'
RE&NATO S. PUNO
Chief 7ustice
LEONAR"O A. 9U!SUMB!NG
#ssociate 7ustice
CONSUELO &NARES1SANT!AGO
#ssociate 7ustice
ANTON!O T. CARP!O
#ssociate 7ustice
MA. AL!C!A AUSTR!A1MART!NE:
#ssociate 7ustice
J
RENATO C. CORONA
#ssociate 7ustice
CONC!TA CARP!O MORALES
#ssociate 7ustice
A"OLFO S. A:CUNA
#ssociate 7ustice
"ANTE O. T!NGA
#ssociate 7ustice
M!N!TA ;. C!CO1NA:AR!O
#ssociate 7ustice
PRESB!TERO <. ;ELASCO, <R.
#ssociate 7ustice
JJ
ANTON!O E"UAR"O B. NACURA
#ssociate 7ustice
TERES!TA <. LEONAR"O1"E CASTRO
#ssociate 7ustice
ARTURO ". BR!ON
#ssociate 7ustice
C E R T ! F ! C A T ! O N
Pu%suant to Section )9, #%ticle EIII of the Constitution, I ce%tif- that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
%eached in consultation befo%e the case (as assi'ned to the (%ite% of the opinion of the Cou%t.
RE&NATO S. PUNO
Chief 7ustice