Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Vol. 248, September 28, 1995 609
Vol. 248, September 28, 1995 609
Vol. 248, September 28, 1995 609
*
G.R. No. 115367. September 28, 1995.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
610
611
Accused-appellant
1
Eleuterio de Leon seeks the reversal of
the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan,
Branch
_______________
612
15, in Criminal Case No. 2320-M-92 finding him and his co-
accused, Reynaldo Manayao, guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder and sentencing each of them
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua ; to indemnify
the heirs of the victim jointly in the amount of P50,000.00;
and to pay the victims wife the amounts of P180,000.00 as
actual damages and P100,000.00 as moral damages.
Accused Reynaldo Manayao chose not to appeal from the
decision.
In an information filed with the trial court on 10
November 1992, the accused were charged with the crime
of murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
_______________
613
_______________
614
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. De Leon
sidewalk after the victim was hit. Later that day, Chavez
informed the victims wife
12
that he had witnessed the
commission of the crime.
SPO2 Alfredo Bartolome, a police investigator, took 13
down the statement of Simon Mariano on 24 August 1992.
Immediately after the termination of the testimony of
Bartolome, the trial court orally denied the application for 14
bail because the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong.
It then required
15
the prosecution to present its other
witnesses.
The prosecution forthwith presented Dr. Rosauro
Villarama, the Municipal Health Officer of Angat, Bulacan,
who performed an autopsy on the cadaver of the victim, 16
Marcelino Santiago, at 11:00 a.m. of 23 August 1992. He
found one gunshot wound on the victims head, the entry
point being above the right ear and the point of exit,
slightly above 3 in. front of left ear, causing a fracture
and laceration. He concluded that the cause of the victims 17
death was cerebral hemorrhage, gunshot wound, 18
head.
This gunshot wound was caused by an Armalite.
After Dr. Villarama 19completed his testimony, the trial
court dictated an order formally denying the petition for
bail because [s]ufficient evidence has been established to
prove that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong.
Three additional witnesses were presented by the
prosecution, namely, Eduardo Valencia, Chief of the
Intelligence and Investigation Division of the Angat Police
Station; Senior Inspec-
_______________
_______________
616
617
II
_______________
618
619
_______________
31 Id.
32 Appellants Brief, 21; Rollo, 75.
33 People vs. Buka, 205 SCRA 567, 583 [1992].
34 Appellants Brief, 24; Rollo, 78.
620
_______________
39
latter was himself accused of having killed somebody.
Such a submission fails to impress us. Section 20, Rule 130
of the Rules of Court provides that except as provided for in
the succeeding sections [Sections 21, 22, 23, 20, and 25], all
persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known
their perception to others, may be witnesses. Religious or
political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or
conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law,
shall not be a ground for disqualification. Clearly, the mere
pendency of a criminal case against a person does not
disqualify him from becoming a witness. As a matter of
fact, conviction of a crime does not disqualify such person
from being presented
40
as a witness unless otherwise
provided by law.
The appellants claim that Mariano bore a grudge
against him because he (appellant) impregnated Marianos
niece was not established by credible proof.
In an attempt to discredit the other eyewitness, Chavez,
the appellant contends that the former is only an
afterthought witness to shore up the sinking ship of Simon
Mariano as evidenced by the fact that he informed the
authorities . . . only nine (9) months after the killing41and
was an employee of the company owned by the victim.
We are not persuaded. We agree with the following
counter-arguments of the Appellee, thus:
_______________
622
Chavez testified
45
that he did not go to the police because he
was afraid. It was only on 31 May 1993, or a week after
the arrest of accused Manayao but a day before the court
started hearing the case, that he went to see Prosecutor 46
Alberto Vizcocho and volunteered to testify in this case.
Anyhow, the fact remains that he told the victims wife on
the day the shooting 47
incident took place that he had
witnessed the killing.
With respect to the presence or absence of an ulterior
motive, this Court has had occasion to rule that the
relation of superior and subordinate, by itself, does not
constitute such ulterior motive:
_______________
43 People vs. Pama, 216 SCRA 385, 399 [1992]; People vs. Viente, 225 SCRA
361, 370 [1993]; People vs. Lase, 219 SCRA 584, 595 [1993].
44 222 SCRA 183, 192 [1993].
45 TSN, 7 June 1993, 20.
46 Id., 20-23, 33.
47 Id., 30.
623
_______________
48 People vs. Viente, supra note 43, at 368-369, citing People vs.
Almario, 171 SCRA 291 [1989], and Santos vs. Concepcion, 103 Phil. 596
[1958].
49 People vs. Florida, 214 SCRA 227, 239 [1992].
50 People vs. Dela Cruz, 229 SCRA 754, 765 [1994].
51 TSN, 8 October 1993, 3-4.
52 Article 14(16), Revised Penal Code. See People vs. dela Cruz, 207
SCRA 632, 649-650 [1992]; People vs. Garcia, 209 SCRA 164, 178
624
_______________
[1992]; People vs. Ybeas, 213 SCRA 793, 805 [1992]; People vs. Boniao,
217 SCRA 653, 671 [1993].
53 Appellees Brief, 15-16; Rollo, 129-130.
54 Paragraphs 8 and 15, Article 14, Revised Penal Code.
55 RAMON C. AQUINO, The Revised Penal Code, vol. 1 [1987], 376.
625
o0o