649. People vs Gapasin G.R. No.

73489 April 25, 1994

Facts:

CIC Loreto Gapasin, PC Nicanor Saludares, Lorenzo Soriano Alias Olit, Amor Saludares, Frank Saludares,
Bel Saludares, and Nick Saludares attacked and shoot Jerry Calpito, with an Armalite rifle SN No.
3267485. A warrant for the arrest of all the accused was issued on December 14, 1980. Pursuant to the
endorsement dated September 19, 1980 of Lt. Col. Oscar M. Florendo, Isabela Provincial Commander,
appellant, together with Lorenzo Soriano, Amor Saludares and Bel Saludares, was rearrested; while Nick
and Frank Saludares remained at-large. On September 29, 1980, the trial court ordered the dismissal of
the case against Nicanor Saludares on account of his death on June 7, 1980.

According to the witness, Alberto Carrido, who was a relative of Calpito, accused Nicanor Saludares
pointed his gun at Faustina while accused Soriano fired his gun upwards. Saludares warned that he
would kill any relative of Jerry Calpito who would come near him. Faustina and the other relatives of the
victim scampered away as the Saludares' group chased them.

But according to Saludares, Carrido is not a credible witness because his testimony is biased because he
is a relative of Calpito.

Resolution:

This Court has time and again reiterated the principle that it will not interfere with the findings of the
trial court on the issue of credibility of witnesses and their testimonies unless the trial court has plainly
overlooked undisputed facts of substance and value which would have altered the result of the case
(People v. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613 [1992]). Findings of the trial court are generally accorded great
respect by an appellate tribunal for the latter can only read in cold print the testimonies of the
witnesses.

In the trial before the lower court, the eye-witnesses testified in their local dialect and their testimonies
had to be translated to English. In the process of converting into written form the testimonies of the
witnesses, not only the fine nuances but a world of meaning apparent only to the trial judge, may
escape the reader of the translated words (People v. Baslot, 209 SCRA 537 [1992]).

The fact that the prosecution witnesses are relatives of the victim does not necessarily indicate that they
were biased as to impair their credibility. In the absence of proof of ill motive on the part of witnesses,
relationship between them and the victim does not undermine their credibility. On the contrary, it
would be unnatural for persons such as the relatives of the victim who themselves seek justice to
commit the injustice by imputing the crime on persons other than those who are actually responsible

650. People vs Palo

651. People vs De Jesus G.R. Nos. 144080-81. January 26, 2004

Facts:

Arsenio de Jesus and Ruben Lumibao were charged with rape for having carnal knowledge with Agnes
Lumibao was 27 years old, but with a mental age of 3 years and 3 months and an intelligence quotient
(IQ) of 29. Sometime in March 1997, Melba Lumibao Vicente, a paternal aunt of Agnes, observed that
Agnes was pregnant. Melba informed Evelyn about her observation. They asked Agnes who was the
author of her pregnancy by enumerating the names of the men they knew, including Ago, the nickname
of appellant Ruben Lumibao. Agnes only smiled in response to all the names given to her. It was then
and there that Arsenio de Jesus became also an accused because he was mentioned by Agnes as one of
those who allegedly raped her. At the trial they asked Agnes who impregnated her by giving random
names and he nodded when the names of Arsenio and Ruben was mentioned.

AGNES LUMIBAO, the victim, testified on direct examination that the father of her child was Papa and
pointed to appellant Ruben Lumibao. On cross-examination, she testified that her other neighbors,
namely Abet, Ronnie and Gaudencio, also removed her blouse and pants and had sexual intercourse
with her.

Issue:

Whether they can give full faith and credence to the testimony of Agnes Lumibao despite its material
inconsistencies and contradictions

Resolution:

Given the circumstances of Agnes testimony in court, in the light of the entire evidence on record, the
identity of the author of Agnes pregnancy does not appear to us clearly established. Note that the
alleged offenses in Cases Nos. 97-36 and 97-37 took place over an extended period of time and long
before the actual investigation conducted by the NBI. During the investigation, the active influence
played by her mother during the interviews conducted by the NBI psychologist, psychiatrist, and special
investigator is undenied. The trial judge observed her mother’s constant presence and assistance given
to Agnes during her direct examination in court. All these leave us unconvinced that Agnes testimony on
this point could be relied upon to pin down who was her ravisher and the purported father of her child,
with moral certainty.

The rule that this Court should refrain from disturbing the conclusions of the trial court on the credibility
of witnesses and their testimony does not apply where the trial court might have overlooked certain
facts of substance or value which, if considered, would affect the outcome of the case.[45] Further, this
Court will not hesitate to reverse a judgment of conviction and acquit the accused where there are
strong indications pointing to the possibility that the rape charge was motivated by some factors other
than the truth as to its commission.[46] While the allegation of ill motive on the part of the mother
stemming from a dispute over the house and lot owned by the Lumibaos has not been sufficiently
proven by the documentary evidence, we cannot discount the fact that a family squabble existed among
the parties, which could have prompted the mother to file a rape charge against appellant.

With seeds of doubt planted in our minds by the conduct of proceedings on record, we are unable to
accept the lower courts conclusion to convict appellant. His conviction is founded on the sole testimony
of Agnes, but though a credible witness despite her mental retardation, she showed unnecessary
dependence on her mother when identifying the father of her child. Maternal coaching taints her
testimony. That her mother had to be ordered by the judge to go outside the courtroom impresses us as
significant. We are unable to accept as sufficient the quantum of proof required to convict appellant of
rape based on the alleged victims sole testimony. Hence, here we must fall back on a truism of the law,
in dubilis reus est absolvendus. All doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused.

652. People vs Pia.

Facts:

Victorio Pia, Gaudencio Lamangan, Venancio Pia, Diosdado Anciado, Mario Garcia, And Eduardo Vina
were charged of kidnapping. On December 28, 1977 they kidnapped and illegally detained Juanito Chua
and his wife in the evening at Dimasalang, Imus, Cavite. Chua and his wife were rescued by the
Philippine Constabulary on January 3, 1978.

Diosdado Anciado, Venancio Pia, Mario Garcia, Victorio Pia and Eduardo Vina, bolted the Provincial Jail
of Cavite during the trial. Diosdado Anciado surrendered on March 21, 1979 to the Provincial Governor
and was re-confined in the Provincial Jail of Cavite. On June 11, 1979, accused Mario Garcia also
surrendered and was likewise detained anew at the Provincial Jail of Cavite.

The contention of appellant that his extrajudicial confession is not admissible, is untenable. Records
show that accused Venancio Pia, Mario Garcia, Victorio Pia and appellant executed their confessions
before investigators in the presence of counsel de. Appellant's repudiation of his sworn during the trial
because the Philippine Constabulary (PC) allegedly extracted his admissions through the use of force,
threats and intimidation consisting of physical violence is baseless. For if they had indeed been
maltreated, particularly appellant, they should have complained to the counsel de Oficio or to Municipal
Judge to whom the case was referred by the PC for preliminary investigation. In fact, since appellant's
arrest on January 3, 1978, he only complained for the first time, that is, at the hearing held on May 23,
1980, that he was subjected to maltreatment by the PC, claiming that dried banana leaves were placed
on his chest and set on fire. It has been held that where the defendants did not present evidence of
compulsion or duress or violence on their persons; where they failed to complain to the officers who
administered the oaths; where they did not institute any criminal or administrative action against their
alleged intimidators for maltreatment; where there appeared to be no marks of violence on their bodies
and where they did not have themselves examined by a reputable physician to buttress their claim, all
these should be considered as factors indicating voluntariness of confessions.
Resolution:

The rule is that an extrajudicial confession replete with details could not have been extracted by force.
In the case at bar, the confession of appellant contains details which the investigators could not have
known beforehand.

The foregoing declarations were corroborated in their essential details by prosecution witnesses Elma
Chua and PC Sergeant Rodolfo Habana. Clearly then, even if the confession were to be disregarded, the
testimony of the witnesses proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

653. people vs Encipido

Facts:

The following eight (8) persons: (1) Brigido ENCIPIDO (2) Charlito MANATAD, (3) Eddie DE LA PENA
(hereinafter referred to as APPELLANTS), (4) Jesus Rubio, (5) Rudy Lumarda, (6) Jose CABAGERAN (7) Cris
Ramirez, and (8) Jesus or John Doe were charged with Murder for the death of the DECEASED.

Felicisimo Alciso testified testified that he went to the hut of the DECEASED in the afternoon of March
30, 1982, in order to get some chickens which the latter had promised him but that, before reaching the
hut, he heard a gunshot. He stopped and saw that the DECEASED was being tied and subjected to fist
blows. There were three persons who mauled the DECEASED, while others stayed at a distance. Then,
somebody struck the DECEASED with the butt of a gun causing the latter to fall to the ground. He
described that the hands of the DECEASED were tied at the back, ENCIPIDO was behind the DECEASED,
while MANATAD and DE LA PEÑ;A were on the sides. On orders of ENCIPIDO also known as
"Commander Tanga," DE LA PEÑ;A, also called "Agosto de la Pena struck the Deceased's neck with a
bolo which almost I severed the latter's head. Frightened, witness Alciso fled from the scene.

Armando Bagacay, another witness, whose testimony turned out to be hearsay but which nevertheless
is reproduced here to complete the evidence for the prosecution. Two other prosecution witnesses
testified that when he had just arrived from Surigao City at about 2:30 o'clock P.M. of May 1, 1982, and
while still at the wharf, he was met by ENCIPIDO who introduced himself as "Commander Tanga,"
invited him (Ortega) for a drink so he could talk to the latter personally. Having ac cepted the invitation,
the two proceeded to a store where ENCIPIDOs fourteen companions were already waiting. They
introduced themselves as rebels and offered to help the municipal government. In the course of the
conversation, ENCIPIDO and DE LA PEÑ;A disclosed to the Station Commander that they were the ones
who had beheaded the DECEASED, killed a certain Benny and one Balaba, and who were responsible for
all the killings in Dinagat Island.

The other prosecution witness, Mariano Espina, the Municipal Mayor of Loreto, testified that in the
evening of that same day of May 1, 1982, Station Commander Jorge Ortega informed him that
Commander Tanga" and his men wanted to pay him a courtesy call. They arrived at about 8:00 in the
evening at his house. They introduced themselves and placed their sidearms on a table as a sign of
goodwill. At the time, there were about 2 policemen and 3 CHDF men outside the house but no arrests
were made, nor were firearms confiscated, as a sign of reciprocal goodwill "Commander Tanga" then
confided to the Mayor his mission to cooperate with his administration as they had heard that he was a
good Mayor. He also informed the Mayor that he had been a member of the NPA since he was 13 years
old; that he had already killed many people, including the DECEASED, so that the latter could no longer
harm other people with his witchcraft. For his part, DE LA PEÑ;A brought out a sharp-pointed knife and
tried to test its sharpness, admitted having cut the neck of the DECEASED, and even showed the latter's
ear, dried by that time.

Resolution:

Eyewitness Felicisimo Alciso positively Identified APPELLANT as among the group who led the DECEASED
out of his hut, with his hands tied behind his back, and thereafter mauled him and hacked his neck in the
afternoon of March 30, 1982. The autopsy findings, particularly, the "incised wound of the neck,"
"contusions left lumbar region" and "both hands tied at the back with rattan" confirm his description of
what he had witnessed

There is nothing strange either in Alcisos not having mentioned the culprits by name in his sworn
statement taken more than three months after the incident, having referred to them merely as "five
persons." As is wen known "an affidavit is not prepared by the affiant himself Omissions and
misunderstanding . are not infrequent, particularly under circumstances of hurry and impatience."

ENCIPIDO and DE LA PEÑ;A verbally acknowledged their guilt before Station Commander Ortega and
Municipal Mayor Espina when they individually boasted that they had killed the DECEASED so that the
latter could no longer harm other people with his witchcraft. They admitted that they had beheaded the
DECEASED. DE LA PEÑ;A even showed the Mayor the DECEASED's dried ear which he had severed,
Further, while I i in jail, DE LA PEÑ;A also admitted to Alciso when the latter I asked him the reason for
their confinement, that it was because they were the ones who had beheaded the DE CEASED. These
oral confessions indicating complicity in the commission of the crime with which they are charged are
admissible in evidence against the declarants ENCIPIDO and DE LA PEÑ;A pursuant to Sections 22 8 and
29 9 of the Rules of Court. It is the fact that admissions were made by APPELLANTS and against their
own interest which gives them their evidentiary value. 10

It is also to be noted that APPELLANTS' extra-judicial confessions were independently made without
collusion, are Identical with each other in their material respects and confirmatory of the other. They
are, therefore, also admissible as circumstantial evidence against their co-accused implicated therein to
show the probability of the latter's actual participation in the commission of the crime. 11 They are also
admissible as corroborative evidence against the others, it being clear from other facts and
circumstances presented that persons other than the declarants themselves participated in the
commission of the crime charged and proved. 12 They are what is commonly known as interlocking
confession and constitute an exception to the general rule that extrajudicial confessions/admissions are
admissible in evidence only against the declarants thereof

In the last analysis, the core issue addresses itself to the credibility of witnesses, a matter that the Trial
Court had unequalled competence to consider and decide since it was in a vantage position to observe
the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses of both sides while testifying, an opportunity not afforded
to Appellate Courts. Its findings as to credibility should not be disturbed and are entitled to great weight
unless there is some fact of record that has been overlooked or the significance of which has been
misconstrued, which exceptions we find absent herein.