EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-47069. March 29, 1982.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICENTE ORSAL, ET AL., Accused, VICENTE ORSAL, Defendant-Appellant.
SYNOPSIS
Four persons were charged before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City with four separate crimes, namely: Robbery in Band with Multiple Homicide, Robbery in Band with Homicide and two counts of Arson but only appellant Vicente Orsal and accused Ramon Gutierrez stood trial, the other two accused having gone at large. The trial court rejected the defense of alibi and, based on the testimony of witnesses, convicted both accused as charged, with the attendant aggravating circumstances of nighttime and by a band without any mitigating circumstances to offset the same. Gutierrez, being a youthful offender, was committed to the Department of Social Services and Development pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, while appellant Orsal was sentenced to four separate penalties, including death, thus placing all four cases under mandatory review. Appellant contends that he has been denied his constitutional right to speedy trial because the information was filed only about nine months after his arrest and investigation. He impugns the credibility of the statewitnesses by pointing to alleged inconsistencies, improbabilities and contradictions in their testimonies. He argues that such weakness of the state evidence would commensurately strengthen his defense of alibi, as he claims, the trial court erroneously rejected.
The Supreme Court agreed fully with the trial court’s decision and held that there was no denial of appellant’s right to speedy trial because the test of violation of said right has always been to begin counting, the delay from the time the information is filed, not before filing; that the alleged inconsistencies and contradictions imputed to state witnesses were on minor and inconsequential details that would not in any way affect their credibility; and that appellant’s defense of alibi is futile in the face of positive identification made by state witnesses pointing to appellant as one of the perpetrators of the four crimes in question.
Decision of the trial court, affirmed in toto.
The Supreme Court agreed fully with the trial court’s decision and held that there was no denial of appellant’s right to speedy trial because the test of violation of said right has always been to begin counting, the delay from the time the information is filed, not before filing; that the alleged inconsistencies and contradictions imputed to state witnesses were on minor and inconsequential details that would not in any way affect their credibility; and that appellant’s defense of alibi is futile in the face of positive identification made by state witnesses pointing to appellant as one of the perpetrators of the four crimes in question.
Decision of the trial court, affirmed in toto.
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL; TEST OF VIOLATION THEREOF; DELAY COUNTED FROM THE TIME THE INFORMATION IS FILED, NOT BEFORE FILING; NO DENIAL OF THE RIGHT IN CASE AT BAR. — The test of violation of the right to speedy trial has always been to begin counting the delay from the time the information is filed, not before the filing (Kalaw . v. Apostol, 64 Phil. 852). The delay in the filing of the information, which in the instant case has not been without reasonable cause, is, therefore, not to be reckoned with in determining whether there has been a denial of the right to speedy trial. Hence, although the information was filed only about nine (9) months after appellant’s arrest and investigation, there was no denial of his constitutional right of speedy trial.
2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; ALIBI; POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION BY WITNESSES NEGATES ALLEGATION OF LACK OF MOTIVE TO COMMIT THE CRIME; CASE AT BAR. — The weakness of the evidence of the prosecution is, among others, alleged to reveal itself in the lack of motive on the part of appellant to commit so heinous and dastardly a crime as those charged, considering his being a Christian and a missionary. The senselessness of the burning and the killing with manifest cruelty should therefore, according to appellant, exclude him as the author or one of the authors, thereof. He suggests as strong the possibility of a Muslim group being the culprits who are known to be in deep-seated feud with Christians in the region, both engaged in mercilessly killing each other and committing vast destruction of properties over wide areas. There would have been some plausibility in the foregoing speculation had not appellant been positively identified as one of the offenders. (People v. Trawon, 103 SCRA 170; People v. Tirol, 102 SCRA 558; People v. Tabion, 93 SCRA 566; People v. Angeles, 92 SCRA 433). But here again, appellant contends that his identification by the state witnesses was not that positive, reliable or spontaneous that would necessarily make his alibi devoid of credence. What is indubitably clear is that the state witnesses who pointed to appellant as among the culprits are the ones with no motive sufficient to urge them to testify falsely against appellant who would be punished with no less than death in consequence of their perjured testimony.
3. ID.; ID.; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; NOT AFFECTED BY CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES ON MINOR AND INCONSEQUENTIAL DETAILS; CASE AT BAR. — The testimony of Ramon Jimenes did not escape the very keenly scrutinizing examination to which appellant’s counsel subjected the testimonies of all the other state witnesses, in a zealous effort to show their want of credibility with the inconsistencies, improbabilities and contradictions they supposedly contained. Suffice it to say that the alleged contradictions and inconsistencies were on minor and inconsequential details that would not in any way affect Ramon’s credibility. Thus, if he gave different dates of his arrest — and by this appellant would brand this witness as unreliable — no reason was intimated why this witness would give changing dates of his arrest with appellant other than that he merely committed an honest, innocent mistake, certainly not to lie on a fact which was a matter of official record. This holds true in his not being able to remember the exact date of his birth and also in giving different names of the bus he and appellant rode in going to Surabay. These are matters that do not impress themselves deeply in one’s memory, nor do they draw keen attention as to be literally seared in the mind, as the commission of violent crimes does.
4. ID.; ID.; MOTIVE TO PERJURE NOT SUFFICIENTLY SHOWN IN CASE AT BAR. — No sufficient motive was shown why the two (2) eyewitnesses, Antonio Bejic and Ramon Jimenes, would perjure themselves in pointing to appellant as one of the perpetrators of very grave and heinous crimes. That appellant’s mother may have accused Ramon Jimenez of theft would, therefore, not serve as motive to induce the two (2) aforenamed witnesses to give the testimony that named and pointed to not only appellant but three (3) other persons including Ramon Gutierrez who stood trial with appellant, as malefactors. Even as to Ramon Jimenes alone, the alleged motive is assuredly not enough for him to charge falsely appellant, who is his cousin, with such grievous offenses as the killing of four (4) persons, burning down of two (2) houses and stealing of valuable personal belongings.
5. ID.; ID.; ALIBI; UNAVAILING IN CASE AT BAR. — Where appellant’s identity as one of the perpetrators of the four (4) crimes has been established through positive identification of eyewitnesses, his defense of alibi is futile. The barrio captain of New Sagay, where appellant claimed to be when the crimes were being committed, Jesus Agabon, was presented to corroborate appellant’s alibi by testifying that in accordance with the regulation in his place, he registered appellant’s name in a notebook as a transient therein. His testimony became worthless when despite sufficient opportunity given him to produce the notebook in Court, by postponing the hearing not just once but twice the defense witness never again appeared in Court. If his salvation hanged on the credibility of this witness, appellant should have done everything and resorted to even the coercive process of the Court to make said witness go to Court and present the desired document, or explain his inability to do so.
2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; ALIBI; POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION BY WITNESSES NEGATES ALLEGATION OF LACK OF MOTIVE TO COMMIT THE CRIME; CASE AT BAR. — The weakness of the evidence of the prosecution is, among others, alleged to reveal itself in the lack of motive on the part of appellant to commit so heinous and dastardly a crime as those charged, considering his being a Christian and a missionary. The senselessness of the burning and the killing with manifest cruelty should therefore, according to appellant, exclude him as the author or one of the authors, thereof. He suggests as strong the possibility of a Muslim group being the culprits who are known to be in deep-seated feud with Christians in the region, both engaged in mercilessly killing each other and committing vast destruction of properties over wide areas. There would have been some plausibility in the foregoing speculation had not appellant been positively identified as one of the offenders. (People v. Trawon, 103 SCRA 170; People v. Tirol, 102 SCRA 558; People v. Tabion, 93 SCRA 566; People v. Angeles, 92 SCRA 433). But here again, appellant contends that his identification by the state witnesses was not that positive, reliable or spontaneous that would necessarily make his alibi devoid of credence. What is indubitably clear is that the state witnesses who pointed to appellant as among the culprits are the ones with no motive sufficient to urge them to testify falsely against appellant who would be punished with no less than death in consequence of their perjured testimony.
3. ID.; ID.; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; NOT AFFECTED BY CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES ON MINOR AND INCONSEQUENTIAL DETAILS; CASE AT BAR. — The testimony of Ramon Jimenes did not escape the very keenly scrutinizing examination to which appellant’s counsel subjected the testimonies of all the other state witnesses, in a zealous effort to show their want of credibility with the inconsistencies, improbabilities and contradictions they supposedly contained. Suffice it to say that the alleged contradictions and inconsistencies were on minor and inconsequential details that would not in any way affect Ramon’s credibility. Thus, if he gave different dates of his arrest — and by this appellant would brand this witness as unreliable — no reason was intimated why this witness would give changing dates of his arrest with appellant other than that he merely committed an honest, innocent mistake, certainly not to lie on a fact which was a matter of official record. This holds true in his not being able to remember the exact date of his birth and also in giving different names of the bus he and appellant rode in going to Surabay. These are matters that do not impress themselves deeply in one’s memory, nor do they draw keen attention as to be literally seared in the mind, as the commission of violent crimes does.
4. ID.; ID.; MOTIVE TO PERJURE NOT SUFFICIENTLY SHOWN IN CASE AT BAR. — No sufficient motive was shown why the two (2) eyewitnesses, Antonio Bejic and Ramon Jimenes, would perjure themselves in pointing to appellant as one of the perpetrators of very grave and heinous crimes. That appellant’s mother may have accused Ramon Jimenez of theft would, therefore, not serve as motive to induce the two (2) aforenamed witnesses to give the testimony that named and pointed to not only appellant but three (3) other persons including Ramon Gutierrez who stood trial with appellant, as malefactors. Even as to Ramon Jimenes alone, the alleged motive is assuredly not enough for him to charge falsely appellant, who is his cousin, with such grievous offenses as the killing of four (4) persons, burning down of two (2) houses and stealing of valuable personal belongings.
5. ID.; ID.; ALIBI; UNAVAILING IN CASE AT BAR. — Where appellant’s identity as one of the perpetrators of the four (4) crimes has been established through positive identification of eyewitnesses, his defense of alibi is futile. The barrio captain of New Sagay, where appellant claimed to be when the crimes were being committed, Jesus Agabon, was presented to corroborate appellant’s alibi by testifying that in accordance with the regulation in his place, he registered appellant’s name in a notebook as a transient therein. His testimony became worthless when despite sufficient opportunity given him to produce the notebook in Court, by postponing the hearing not just once but twice the defense witness never again appeared in Court. If his salvation hanged on the credibility of this witness, appellant should have done everything and resorted to even the coercive process of the Court to make said witness go to Court and present the desired document, or explain his inability to do so.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
Vicente Orsal is one of four (4) accused in four (4) separate cases filed in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City: (1) Criminal Case No. 471 (1183) for Arson; (2) Criminal Case No. 472 (1184) for Arson; (3) Criminal Case No. 473 (1185) for Robbery in Band with Multiple Homicide and (4) Criminal Case No. 432 (1157) for Robbery in Band with Homicide. The three (3) other accused are Ramon Gutierrez, Generoso Abapo and Romeo Flores, but the two (2) last named accused having gone at large, only appellant Vicente Orsal and Ramon Gutierrez stood trial, after which they were sentenced as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds the accused, Vicente Orsal and Ramon Gutierrez guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crimes above-mentioned, attended by two (2) aggravating circumstances, namely, that the crimes committed at nighttime and by a band without any mitigating circumstances to offset the same, and pursuant to law, hereby sentences the accused Vicente Orsal the following penalties:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"In Criminal Case No. 432 (1157), for Robbery In Band with Homicide, the Court hereby sentences said accused Vicente Orsal to suffer the supreme penalty of ‘DEATH’, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Jesus Limen the amount of P12,000.00, and to pay one fourth (1/4) of the costs in each of these four cases.
"In Criminal Case No. 473 (1185), for Multiple Homicide, the Court hereby sentences the said accused to suffer four separate and distinct imprisonments of Ten (10) years and One (1) day of Prision Mayor as the minimum to Seventeen (17) years and Five (5) months of Reclusion Temporal as the maximum, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Cristino Bejic, Eduarda Bejic, Roberto Bejic and Atanacia Legazpi the total amount of P48,000.00 and to pay one fourth (1/4) of the costs of this suit in each of these four cases.
"In Criminal Case No. 472 (1184), for Arson, the Court hereby sentences the said accused to suffer the penalty of Four (4) years, Two (2) months and One (1) day of Prision Correccional as the minimum of Ten (10) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as the maximum, to indemnify the heirs of Cristino Bejic the sum of P5,000.00, and to pay one fourth (1/4) of the costs of this suit.
"In Criminal Case No. 471 (1183), for Arson, the Court hereby sentences the said accused to suffer the penalty of Ten (10) years and One (1) day of Prision Mayor as the minimum to Seventeen (17) yeas, Four (4) months and One (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as the maximum, to indemnify Francisco Limen the amount of P8,000.00, and to pay one fourth (
"WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds the accused, Vicente Orsal and Ramon Gutierrez guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crimes above-mentioned, attended by two (2) aggravating circumstances, namely, that the crimes committed at nighttime and by a band without any mitigating circumstances to offset the same, and pursuant to law, hereby sentences the accused Vicente Orsal the following penalties:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"In Criminal Case No. 432 (1157), for Robbery In Band with Homicide, the Court hereby sentences said accused Vicente Orsal to suffer the supreme penalty of ‘DEATH’, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Jesus Limen the amount of P12,000.00, and to pay one fourth (1/4) of the costs in each of these four cases.
"In Criminal Case No. 473 (1185), for Multiple Homicide, the Court hereby sentences the said accused to suffer four separate and distinct imprisonments of Ten (10) years and One (1) day of Prision Mayor as the minimum to Seventeen (17) years and Five (5) months of Reclusion Temporal as the maximum, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Cristino Bejic, Eduarda Bejic, Roberto Bejic and Atanacia Legazpi the total amount of P48,000.00 and to pay one fourth (1/4) of the costs of this suit in each of these four cases.
"In Criminal Case No. 472 (1184), for Arson, the Court hereby sentences the said accused to suffer the penalty of Four (4) years, Two (2) months and One (1) day of Prision Correccional as the minimum of Ten (10) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as the maximum, to indemnify the heirs of Cristino Bejic the sum of P5,000.00, and to pay one fourth (1/4) of the costs of this suit.
"In Criminal Case No. 471 (1183), for Arson, the Court hereby sentences the said accused to suffer the penalty of Ten (10) years and One (1) day of Prision Mayor as the minimum to Seventeen (17) yeas, Four (4) months and One (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as the maximum, to indemnify Francisco Limen the amount of P8,000.00, and to pay one fourth (
