People v Brioso
37 SCRA 336 (1971)
Facts:
1. The two accused, Juan Brioso and
Mariano Taeza, were charged with the crime of murder
2. Between 8
and 9 in
the evening, the Sps. Silvino
Daria and Susana
Tumalip were in
their house.
a. The husband
was making rope
in the annex of their house,
b. while the wife, four meters away,
was applying candle wax to a flat iron.
Silvino Daria was using a lamp where he worked.
c. Outside,
the night was bright because of the moon overhead.
3. Cecilia Bernal,
a niece and
neighbor of the
spouses, was alarmed
by the barking
of dogs.
a. She peeped
through a crack
in the wall
of her house
and saw appellants
herein pass southward
in the direction
of the house
of Silvino that was
six meters away.
b. Brioso
was carrying a long gun. She
went downstairs and, witnessed each appellant
point a gun at the
bamboo wall of
Daria's house.
c. Two detonations followed, and
thereafter she heard Daria moaning and his
wife call for
help, saying her
husband had been
shot.
d. Bernal went
to the house
and found the
victim prostrate, wounded
and unable to
speak.
4. The widow testified that
right after being
shot, she rushed
to her husband's side and he told her that he was
shot by Juan and Mariano.
5. Silvino expired one hour later as
a result of gunshot wounds in the abdomen
and leg. A
few days later,
Cecilia and the widow
executed affidavits pointing
to the two
accused as the
killers (Exhibits "B" and "C," respectively).
6. The cause
of the death
of Silvino Daria
was "Shock due
to severe hemorrhage
secondary to gunshot
wounds at the
abdomen and leg," as
found by Dr.
Isabelo B. Lucas,
Municipal Health Officer,
contained in his Medico(Legal Necropsy Report, Exhibit "A".
7. The motive
for the killing
appears to have
been the disapproval
by the spouses
Silvino and Susana
Daria of Mariano
Taeza's courtship of
their daughter, Angelita.
Angelita was even
sent to Manila
for her to
avoid Mariano Taeza. The
courtship is admitted by Mariano Taeza.
8. CFI: guilty; On appeal raised the
following assignment of error
a. erred in relying on the
uncorroborated and contradictory
testimony and statement
of the prosecution
witness Cecilia Bernal
on the physical identity of the accused;
b. erred in
disregarding the affidavit
(Exhibit 2) of
Antonio Daria, son
of the deceased,
clearing the accused
Mariano Taeza, which
affidavit had been
identified in court
by the fiscal
before whom the
same was executed;
Issue:
Held:
We find no
discrepancy in the
testimony of Cecilia
Bernal on the
material points. She
stated that she
did not see
Mariano Taeza carry
a gun when
both the accused
passed by. But
this brief observation
does not necessarily
mean that he
was not actually
armed or carrying
a gun on
his person. The
fact that he did was proved when both the said accused were seen
pointing their respective
gun at the
victim and each
subsequently fired once
at him, Taeza
using a short
weapon that could
have been carried concealed in his person.
The house of
Cecilia was only 6
meters away from that
of Silvino’s. The
night was brightly
illuminated by the
moon. Cecilia had known
both accused for
a long time
and it is
admitted that they
also know her. There could have been no difficulty
in identifying the accused under the
circumstances.
Cecilia had no motive to impute falsely this heinous
charge of murder against the above(said
accused, considering that Mariano Taeza is a nephew of
the deceased by
a first degree
cousin. Even Juan
Brioso specifically said
that he knew
of no reason
why she should
testify against him.
Hence, her statement
that she came
to court only
to tell the
truth should be
believed.
The
witness also stated
that she was
hard of hearing
and could not
understand some of
the questions; thus,
the alleged inconsistencies in
her testimony do
not detract from
the "positive and
straightforward" identification of the accused as the ones who were
seen at the scene of the crime and who actually
shot Silvino.
It is
noteworthy that the
trial judge observed
witness Bernal closely,
warning her several times not to exaggerate, yet in the decision gave
her full credence, being
obviously satisfied of
her truthfulness.
The general rule, based on logic and experience, is
that the findings of the judge
who tried the
case and heard
the witnesses are
not disturbed on
appeal, unless there
are substantial facts
and circumstances which
have been overlooked and which, if properly
considered, might affect the result of the
case, which in this case have not been shown to exist.
Moreover,
the testimony of
Cecilia finds corroboration in
the declaration of the victim,
who told his
wife that it was Juan
Brioso and Mariano Taeza who shot him. This statement
does satisfy the requirements of an ante mortem
statement. Judged by
the nature and
extent of his
wounds, Silvino must have
realized the seriousness
of his condition,
and it can
be safely inferred
that he made
the same under
the consciousness of
impending death,
considering that he
died only one
hour after being shot.
The
defense of both
the accused is alibi. Mariano’s
own account was that
he was at the barrio clinic of Tiker
playing the guitar
with Antonio Daria
(son of the
deceased), Narciso Valera
and Jose Cabais.
While in the
said place, they
heard two gun
explosions. Soon afterwards,
Macrino Arzadon and
Taurino Flores came
running towards them, informing
Antonio Daria that his father was already dead.
Exhibit "2," the alleged affidavit of
Antonio Daria, was presented in court to
corroborate Mariano’s testimony. But while
the said affidavit
was identified by
the Provincial Fiscal
as having been
subscribed and sworn
to before him,
he also stated
that he did
not know Antonio
Daria personally and
that was the
only time he
appeared before him.
Exhibit "2" does
not have the
seal of the
Fiscal's Office. Moreover, the
said exhibit was
never identified by
the supposed affiant
and there was
no opportunity for
the prosecution to
cross-examine him.
As stated in
People vs. Mariquina,
affidavits are generally
not prepared by
the affiants themselves
but by another
who uses his
own language in
writing the affiants'
statements, which may
thus be either
committed or misunderstood
by the one
writing them. For
this reason, and
for the further
reason that the
adverse party is
deprived of the
opportunity to cross-examine
the affiants, affidavits
are generally rejected
in a judicial
proceeding as hearsay,
unless the affiants
themselves are placed
on the witness
stand to testify
thereon.
In view hereof,
We find Exhibit
"2" of no
probative value, and
that the lower
court did not
err when it
rejected the same.
In this connection,
it is markworthy
that the prosecuting
attorney stated in
open court that Antonio Daria
had also executed another
affidavit (Exhibit "D") in
the Fiscal's office
"to the effect
that he went
to the office
of defense counsel,
...... and there
affixed his thumbmark
on a statement
that was never
read to him." Be
that as it
may, not one
of the other
persons who, Mariano
Taeza claimed, were
with him in
the barrio clinic
(Narciso Valera and Jose Cabais)
was produced in
court to support
his alibi. Mariano
Taeza's testimony, therefore,
remains uncorroborated.
It has been
repeatedly held that in the
face of direct
evidence, alibi is
necessarily a weak
defense and becomes
more so if
uncorroborated. It is worse
if the alibi
could have been
corroborated by other persons mentioned by the accused but
they are not presented.
By Mariano Taeza's
own admission, he
and the other
accused, Juan Brioso,
are close friends.
It was shown
that Mariano Taeza's
house is only
about two hundred meters from
that of Silvino Daria's and that the barrio clinic is only
about eighty to
one hundred meters
from the said
victim's place. Mariano Taeza himself stated that Silvino
Daria died "may be less than thirty
minutes, may be five minutes" after his arrival at the victim's
house with the latter's son and other
persons. As held in another case the
defense of alibi is so
weak that in
order to be
believed there should
be a demonstration
of physical impossibility for the
accused to have been at the scene of the crime
at the time of its commission. Mariano Taeza was so near the
victim's house that it was easy for him
to be there when the shooting occurred.
The other accused,
Juan Brioso, stated
that he was
in sitio Catungawan. He was there upon invitation of
his first cousin,
Nestorio Flores, to
cut and mill
sugar cane. They cut
sugar cane from
4 to 5
in the afternoon.
At 6:30, after
supper, he, his
cousin, and the
latter's son, Felix
Flores, started milling the sugar cane which they had cut. The milling
lasted up to
2 in the
early morning of
the following day. He never
left the place
where they were milling. He learned of the death of Silvino Daria
only when he returned to Addamay because
his parents informed him of the news. He
admitted knowing Cecilia Bernal and that she likewise knows him.
He denied being
a close friend
of Mariano Taeza
(thereby contradicting Mariano
Taeza's testimony); denied
that he had
gone to the
house of Angelita
Daria, and his
having knowledge of
the courtship of
Angelita by Mariano Taeza; or that both of them used to
drink and go out together. On cross-examination, however, he admitted that
he went with Mariano Taeza
when they attended
dances. One
such occasion was
during the birthday
of his first degree cousin in
Addamay.
Nestorio Flores
was presented to
corroborate the alibi
of the accused.
But while both
exhibited wonderful memory
as to what
happened between sunset and midnight of 23 December 1966, they
contradict each other as to what
happened in the earlier hours or events.
As already stated, Juan Brioso testified
that he left his place in Addamay at 8 in the morning and arrived at his cousin's house before the noon meal of 23
December 1966; but Nestorio Flores asserted
that it was
8 in the
morning when Juan
Brioso arrived. Brioso claimed that they cut sugar cane from
4 to 5 in the afternoon of the said day.
His cousin testified
that they cut
sugar cane in
the morning after
Brioso's arrival until lunchtime.
Brioso stated that they milled sugar cane for the
third time in
that place in
1966, the first
occasion being on
29 November, and
the second on
8 December. Flores
denied this, saying
that they did not cut sugar cane
in November, 1966, although in other years they
did. He further
stated that it
was already in
December of that
year that Brioso
came. In fact,
the same witness
showed uncertainty as
to the exact
date, when he answered even on direct examination that "may be that
was the time when he came."
In cases of positive identification of the culprit
by reliable witnesses,
it has been
held that the
defense of alibi
must be established by "full, clear and
satisfactory evidence." It is
obvious that this witness, who
is a close
relative of the
accused, was merely
presented in court
in an attempt
to save Juan
Brioso from punishment
for the crime
committed. We believe the trial court when it found that the witness
has an interest in the fate of the
accused Juan Brioso, and, therefore, his testimony should not be given credence.
Evidence also shows that from Tiker to
Catungawan is only
about nine kilometers
and only a
two(hour walk. The
place is also
accessible by motor
transportation, although motor vehicles are allegedly rare in the said
place.
As in the
case of Mariano
Taeza, it was
not physically impossible
for Juan Brioso to be at the locus criminis at the
time the crime was committed.
It has been
clearly and sufficiently
proved that the
killing of Silvino
Daria was qualified by
treachery (alevosia)." The victim was quietly making rope in
his own house.
He was caught
off(guard and defenseless
when suddenly and unexpectedly the two accused fired at
him. He had no chance either to
evade or repel
the aggression. The
trial court correctly
held that treachery
absorbs nocturnity and
abuse of superior
strength.
But while these aggravating circumstances
are always included
in the qualifying
circumstance of treachery,
the commission of
the crime in
the victim's dwelling
is not, hence
the crime is
murder attended by
one aggravating circumstance, which has been held to be present
where the victim was shot inside his
house although the
triggerman was outside.
There
being no mitigating circumstance to offset it, the
apposite penalty is death. However, for lack
of sufficient votes,
the penalty imposable
is reduced to
life imprisonment.
No comments:
Post a Comment